Roy (or others), I'm not into politics, so maybe you can expound a little on your thoughts. From a non-political person, RCV sounds like a great idea.
The predictable strategy going forward is that parties will run multiple candidates, one as an independent. They will then attack their combined opponent 2-on-1.
Wouldn't that work both ways though, so it would net out to no advantage? Democrats have their primary person, but also push an independent, but then Republicans do the same?
Sure the '16 Presidential election might have turned out different if it was Hilary, Bernie, Trump, and Cruz all running, but I think it would be more reflective of what the people wanted, no?
Wouldn't this just help move away from a 2 party system? Or is a 2 party system actual better?
It confuses voters,
Any change will confuse voters at first (just like changing to the metric system would confuse people at first), but short term confusion isn't a reason to hold back a better system (well that is if you actually think it's better), people will adjust and get used to it and no longer be confused. Short term confusion shouldn't hold back progress.
and makes it so that a candidate not only needs to beat both his/her opponents, but needs to beat their combined strength.
Why is this bad? Maybe I just need an example to help visualize it a little. Would this not help the keep people out of office who the majority don't want there? So it makes it harder to win an election, shouldn't it be hard?
How much of a delay are we talking? And how soon do we really need to know results. I only know of the big elections, November election to go into office in January. Seems like there's plenty of time there. Doesn't seem like a big deal to a non-political person.