"Gordon Weil, a former Maine state agency head and municipal selectman, argued in a 2015 piece for CentralMaine.com that RCV runs counter to the democratic process:
"Ranked-choice proponents dislike [other types of] primaries, because fringe candidates can win, producing an unhappy choice in the general election. That sounds like the position of philosopher-kings who really don’t trust democracy and certainly want to see the end of political parties. If there’s something wrong with [other types of] primaries, find a way to get more people to vote. But don’t manipulate their voting. ... If we want decisions guaranteed to be made by a majority, then a runoff is a better idea, because it allows voters to make a clear choice rather than the muddled, computer-run outcome of ranked-choice voting."
"In a 2016 article for Democracy, Simon Waxman contended that RCV is not necessarily more likely to produce more moderate candidates or more diverse legislative bodies, as some proponents of RCV contend:
"There is also little reason to believe that RCV will promote legislative moderation—or new campaign tactics—at the federal level, because it usually produces outcomes similar to what one would expect from a standard plurality system. In the 2013 Australian federal election, 90 percent of constituencies elected the candidate with the most first-preference votes, which suggests that choice ranking had little effect on the outcome."
In CA we have non-partisan primaries. I oppose those as well. Here in HB, the GOP nearly stole a primary by getting a person to run they thought would help Dana by splintering the Dem vote. This could happen anywhere.