Ranked choice voting is just a primary with fewer steps

This is wrong. It is a multi-stage runoff election with fewer steps (hence why it's called "instant runoff"), and that's a good thing because it means that people are much less likely to invalidate their ballot by voting for a first-preference candidate with no chance of winning.

Ranked choice gives you the most moderate candidate and weeds out the others

Ranked Choice Voting gives you (more often than not*)the most broadly popular candidate. Which is what you should want if you believe in democracy or the concept of a republic.

I feel like this should go without saying, but the goal of democratic reform is not to put the person you like in power, it's to put the people back in power.

If the most popular candidate happens to be too "moderate" for your tastes, then it's up to you to advocate for your positions in a way that will change hearts and minds in order to get more people on your side. If you can't do that, then you really have no business winning a truly democratic election, right?

• There are some statistically possible scenarios in which the most broadly popular does not win a RCV election, but they are far less likely than any version of our current first-past-the-post plurality voting system.