Why wouldn’t it be, unless a state constitution explicitly bans it?
Ranked choice is simply an “instant” application of the idea of a series of run-off elections, where after each round, the worst vote-getter is eliminated, and those voters get to choose their next-best candidate, and they continue until one candidate has more than 50% of the vote.
In some states, they eliminate all but the top two candidates, and then have another election a month later. This allows people to make a more informed choice between the last two standing candidates, and eliminates the votes of people who really didn’t care about those candidates, who won’t show up again.
Ranked choice just makes sure that we collect all the votes for the voters that actually show up.
The problem with ranked choice is mostly that it is a game theory operation, and major party candidates need to learn how to play the game.
In this election, the republicans needed to find a fringe candidate. You can find some good constitutional conservative, or a decent libertarian who is economically conservative. Frankly it can be a racist, sexist, or any other weirdo (the two minor candidates on the ballot in this election were far-left wackos). The idea is to do this without fingerprints. It draws additional voters out who are likely to pick your main republican candidate as a 2nd or 3rd choice. The goal is to increase turnout of people who might be willing to throw their vote your way.
In this election, those two other candidates were both far-left, which gave their secondary votes to the democrat.
In fact, it is likely that over half the voters who showed up did NOT want the republican to win.
OR, the republican might be right, about how THIS election picked the 2nd/3rd choices, I presumed the voters had to explicitly identify their other choices, and that the computer was properly programed, but it sounds like there are questions about that.
Ranked choice voting is a liberal Hobby horse, and their love for it it just reinforces their view that they’re smarter than the rest of us. Much of the electorate is not sophisticated and likely to be confused. If the whole thrust of voting is to make it easy for every uninformed moron to get registered and to vote, and if the slow witted and uninformed are a key part of the rat constituency, adding complexity to the system seems antithetical (though it paid off here.)
Voters get the option of changing there minds when there’s a runoff. And a lot of hanky lanky gets outed in the meantime. Democrats are despicable!