Sort of?

A comprehensive look at voter turnout from 2000 onwards reveals that the average turnout rate for primary elections is 27% of registered voters, compared to 60.5% for general elections. It should be noted that less than half of the voters who cast a ballot in the general election participate in primaries.

https://goodparty.org/blog/article/primary-vs-general-election

All sorts of problems have solutions. I see this a lot in the tech space, like the need to save a video, Adblock, whatever.

…But generally, people don’t use them. Or know about them.

US primaries feel similar, where voters technically have the ability to choose candidates but, statistically, they don’t.

Attention is finite. Many dont know about primaries. To me, giving people the choice doesn’t matter if it’s obscure and inaccessibly designed.

No voting system by itself will do much. We need to switch to a proportional system or else minority parties won't have a fair shot at representation. If a party gets 2% of the vote, they should get 2% of the seats. Not possible with single-winner methods.

Ranked Choice Voting is an improvement over plurality voting, but as I've written elsewhere (too lazy to look it up), I think any election with a single winner is still going to end up with weird/disappointing outcomes at least 90% of the time. I think this post is referring to the governor of New York, no? I would rather see a system where the state legislature is elected proportionally, and then the governor would be selected from a coalition agreement between the governing parties - similar to what you see in many national, state and provincial systems across Europe. This system isn't without its downsides, but at least it's harder for incumbent parties to force voters to support them even if those voters don't want to.

Of course, this is a much more fundamental reform, so it's harder to adopt. RCV is definitely an improvement. It's great to see some progress happening out there in the USA.