I would say that Ranked-Vote is preferable to the current system in both Canadian and American politics. It allows voters to express their first choice — even if it is understood that first choice is not likely to win.
I would say that a ranked vote is more likely to be accepted than any version of PR in the USA. I believe Maine is already using a ranked ballot in their federal elections. If one state is doing it, others can see it. Sort of like Oregon directly electing its senator in 1908.
I also like the analysis from Mr. Crawford about the R primaries. Mr Trump would not have gone as far in 2016 if a ranked ballot was implemented.
First-past-the-post has its advantages. Political scientists believe FPTP, with its limited parties, forces parties take a moderate approach — if they want to be elected. And when a party has attained a majority, it is more able to enact legislation than a PR government, which is usually a minority. For countries that use PR, extreme parties often find representation in the legislature, which gives them more credibility than they deserve. And making legislation requires some weird coalitions of parties who are somewhat hostile to each other. Believe it or not, advocates for political structural change in Europe often look to Canada as their example.
I bring this point up because FPTP, PR, and ranked ballot have the pros and cons to them. It is foolhardy to call one system as “make-up” just as it is foolhardy to call the electoral college as “undemocratic” for the EC will never vault candidate a significant majority of the people really don’t want into the president’s job. When I see one system being labelled as undemocratic, I usually a partisan advocate.
What FPTP, PR, and RB have in common is they still use political parties. All three systems still have the 12 limitations of western democracy I have written about.
If we want real change, we have to cast aside all political parties.