Ranked choice voting gives voters real choices. You don't have to worry about spoiling your ballot. And it reduces negativity in campaigning. Candidates have to appeal to those voters who are already set on ranking another candidate in first place, because they will likely need 2nd place and even 3rd place votes to win the election.
Elections would focus on the issues and there would be a broader range of views presented. And negativity would decrease. There would be more civil disagreement and less smear campaigns.
Furthermore the winners would more often than not be middle of the road consensus candidates. We would not have such polarizing candidates as Trump and Hillary.
If Maine Question 5 passes, Mainers will get to select up to five candidates in order of preference. If there is no majority in the initial tally of voting, and their first choice finishes last in the initial tally, their vote will be transferred to their second choice in the next tally. (In each tally, the last-place finisher gets eliminated). And if there is still no majority, and their second choice ranks last in the second tally, their vote will be transferred to their third choice, and so on, until one candidate has a majority. Or, put another way: If one candidate wins a majority in the initial tally, there is no runoff. If no candidate wins a majority, candidates are eliminated from the bottom-up, with each eliminated candidate's supporters going to their next-ranked choice for the following round, until one candidate has more than half of the votes.
The other states will have to follow suit now that Maine passes measure to become the first state. This is because of Maine's rank-choice voting. Therefore i support this and hope that this will happened and that it will be accorded this rank. Washington D.C on the other side should be ranked the 51st as they wish.
I do not think other states will introduce ranked-choice voting because it is too radical and an unusual a departure from the traditional U.S. voting model. Many voters might not be familiar enough with all the candidates on the ballot to feel comfortable ranking them all in order of preference. Furthermore, ranked-choice voting is complicated. It can cause voters to doubt whether their vote counts as much as it would under the simpler traditional system.
The ranking system would still be based on a plurality voting system(majority vote) so it would not change who won. People would rank the person they thought most qualified 1, which would be no different than voting someone on a single vote. If the person with the most first place votes wins the outcome is no different. Therefore, I don't see the rest of the country changing its ways.