
Ranked choice means it’s easier for voters, but when it’s not available voters are capable of understanding the scenario you describe and voting accordingly.
Many times I haven’t voted for my preferred candidate and instead voted for the candidate most likely to defeat the candidate I couldn’t stomach getting into power. Here in Canada we call it voting strategically and if you look at the polling data it definitely happened last election (and in many others in the past).
I’d like to have ranked choice, but it’s insane to say it’s not a democracy without it. But multiple rounds of voting (like France has) is better than ranked choice as it gives a clear choice to voters in the final round. But having multiple voting rounds is expensive and people might prefer to just vote once and have it done with, so ranked choice may be preferable for many people.
It’s a think globally, act locally kind of thing. You can love your community and help people in your community without disliking other communities.
If you love your wife, and she’s obviously of some ethnicity does that mean you’re racist against other ethnicities?
The fact is everyone lives somewhere and wanting to live in a good place and working to to make where you live better doesn’t mean you hate the places you can’t really do anything to improve. This isn’t a zero sum game, people in countries where I don’t live can work to make where they live a better place too.
Wanting to live in a good country isn’t a negative emotional thing, it’s actually very rational. Countries function better when people work together for the common good, and that’s ultimately what patriotism is about.