From what I can gather, people are dissatisfied with the meta as it stands. That is reasonable--the meta feels off in some way. The proposed solution is banning Dynamax--this seems silly to me. I will give a few reasons why I am in favor of ranked choice voting with an instant runoff instead of just a dynamax ban, and why I feel that dynamax is not the culprit, or at least not broken.The main reason I believe that we should have instant runoff voting is that I do not believe that Dynamax is banworthy, and I would like to see weakness policy tested at the same time.Let's start off with the basics. Banning a mechanic, as opposed to a pokemon, should be understood differently than the normal ban process. This is because one important element of banning individual mons is the benefit of running the mon vs. not running it, e.g., a mon gives too much advantage to use that it is a mistake to not use it. This doesn't really make sense with Dynamax, as it is automatically accessible to both players. To be sure, players can make teams that make better use out of dynamax, as they could make teams that made better use out of Z moves and super sitrus berries, but the mechanic is available to all players, no matter how they build their teams.Second, when banning, we should try to create a simpler ban list. Simpler, however, doesn't mean shorter. Banning dynamax is a massive move, and even if the ban list is shorter as a result, that does not necessarily mean that it is better.On what I feel is a pretty bad argument: in order to save dynamax we have to ban a lot of stuff, so we should just ban dynamax. This is a question of throwing the baby out with the bath water, and of course that is a bad idea. The question remains, however: what is the baby and what is the bath water? I think that if we ban dynamax to save a number of things that no one cares about in the first place, then we have made a mistake.First, I don't think anyone honestly liked beat up + justified as a mechanic, and we didn't bother to ban it because it wasn't particularly strong in the first place. If it had ever been truly strong it would have been banned for being cancer. We didn't ban it because it wasn't a real strategy.Similarly for weakness policy. Weakness policy found a home last gen on Diancie and only Diancie. That's ok! it's a cool item and I like it. But it seems to me that we don't lose much by losing weakness policy, in a non-Max format, whereas we do lose a lot by losing Dynamax as a mechanic.Finally, even if we have to ban Charizard as well to save Dynamax I'm completely fine with that. If Dynamax gets banned, zard very well might be unviable. It might as well be banned except for one line on the ban list.To me, at this point in time, Dynamax seems like the baby and Zard/Beat up/Shadow Tag/Weakness policy all seem like the bath water, if we even have to ban all of them. If Dynamax gets more broken later, e.g., Max Ultra Beasts turn out to be broken, or max Landorus, then I would be happy to revisit it. A relatively small banlist to save a massive mechanic is fine by me.With all that said, I will survey some of the better arguments.Why would we ban dynamax? I think that there are arguments here are better than the ones people have been giving, and I'm going to link a game I played in seasonals to demonstrate.This game I start off in a reasonable position with an Incin Dragapult lead, and Memoric decides to take advantage of that by trying to blow holes in my team with Keldeo. I seriously consider maxing my Pult here, but choose not to, and am rewarded as I am able to stall out the max turns. Then all I have to do is put one of my pokemon that can max in a decent position and I almost automatically win the game, assuming memo doesn't do the same to me.The point here is not to brag about my win vs memoric, but to show that Dynamax can place a lot of pressure on leads and turn 1 decisions in a way that is not necessarily healthy. The amount of swing in a game from this one decision that is, to some extent, a 50/50 so early can make it difficult to play healthy games of pokemon and instead play games of chicken.Check out this game I had vs SMB. https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/smogtours-gen8doublesou-479426 Just look at the turn 1, and assume Mimikyu has shadow sneak and Necrozma has Weakness policy (they do). How do you play this first turn in a way that doesn't instantly lose you the game if you're wrong? I played aggressively turn 1 and was rewarded for it, but got really scared turn 2 by the potential to just set up the weakness policy there (which was a mistake).Decisions and calls are important in pokemon, and I'm not arguing that we should take away high pressure situations. I'm merely arguing that having them all be turn 1 is not necessarily healthy.Even with all that said, Dynamax is balanced. Z moves were hidden and put a lot of pressure on opponents to play around each of them. Optimizing your Z move timing was important and taking a key knock out with it could end the game. In a game I played with Stax , I managed to hide my Z move and then punish him for not respecting my options. it is a similar manner with dynamax. You have to respect which pokemon your opponent wants to dynamax, when they want to do it, and what they're going to go for. That doesn't make it broken, as dynamaxing in response, or even just stalling it out tends to be sufficient.So far in the post-home meta, the only pokemon i've been super scared of dynamaxing are the ones with multiple boosts already set up. Zard is scary because it has the Sun boost, Solar Power boost and the life orb boost. Weakness policy mons are scary because they max and have boosts at the same time. If a pokemon is required to set up in some way before it maxes, then it can take chip and won't be at full health when it maxes. This enables offensive counterplay as an option, as if pokemon don't max at full health then maxing in response can deal with them offensively (if a +2 60% rotom maxes, I can make it go away. I can't do that to a +2 +2 full health Pult). The problem with dynamax is when the max mons get their boosts for free (using your max moves to get a boost is not free, you only have 3 of those). Most mons can take LO boosted max moves, allowing the possibility of pivoting around the max until it runs out. The problem comes when the max mons get multiple boosts quickly and the boosts can't even be dealt with pre-emptively (as snarling necrozma activates the policy).Overall, this is less well written than I would have liked. To summarize: we should do nails' suggestion. Dynamax is only banworthy because of the pressure put on it in each game, as a result of it being a mechanic. However, that pressure has been seen in previous mechanics and was similarly game deciding, but was fine. Dynamax is a resource and resource management is important. However, if dynamax is too good offensively (because of weakness policy) then it becomes a problem. I think that Dynamax without WP is manageable offensively and defensively and should at least be given a shot.P.S.It's possible that the meta would be better without Dynamax. However, we play pokemon, and as a result we should try to stay as close to the cartridge as possible. Pokemon involved z moves and megas last gens, and now it involves Dynamax. That's what pokemon is now.