And in practice, it allows you register displeasure with the main party candidates without throwing away your vote.

because they're like that.

I particularly like the idea that you can cut off your choices at any point, as in
1. Hillary
2. Gary
3. Jill
4. NOBODY (or as we say for awards ceremonies, Noah Ward)
In my fantasy, NOBODY would have won before DT.

Somebody strongly opposed by a majority but strongly supported by a plurality.

The Green voters who hated Hillary would have voted for Stein first and Trump second.

third parties have almost zero viability.

What it would do is end candidates winning with a plurality. That alone is enough for me.

How does ranked choice voting work?

http://www.rcvmaine.com/how_does_ranked_choice_voting_work

Those who want to support a third party with their vote but understand math might welcome ranked-choice.

the day you vote.

Carry on.

been feeding them whatever they will accept on this subject?

My personal experience is that most third-party voters are dysfunctional thinkers, or perhaps I should say reactors. They're definitely emotionally engaged, but finding and processing genuine information is a major problem for them, as is the reactionary spite many develop toward mainstream people who don't appreciate their wisdom.

Like rabid trumpsters, it's more than just being terminally clueless. That one main party is is busy getting universal healthcare for them and the other uses extreme cruelty to children as a government policy somehow are either completely blocked from mind or through some weird mental alchemy turned into conviction that there's no significant difference.

Kind of. It seems sensible in theory and is kind of fun, in practice it pisses me off but that is more the choice of candidates than the system.
That said 90 percent of people don't even bother and vote by party preferences so it may as well be first past the post.

And again I am aware it is a vastly different system and it's also one where independents and minor parties can influence real change so that helps.

To paraphrase, our preferential voting system does not elect the people most liked. Rather, it elects the ones LEAST despised!

It certainly feels that way sometimes.

wouldn't this type of vote tally have to be conducted by a computer? And there-in lies the problem.

Until we can guarantee that it can't be hacked, the republicans and/or ruskies will figure out how to do just that.

It would sure work better than the current system.

The Dem was second choice for enough people that it swung the election to him. It won't always work in our favor, but I am satisfied that the outcome better represents the majority of voters.