The historical idea behind this (and it's been a thing for hundreds and hundreds of years) is that the people with peerages sit in the House of Lords which is their house and they therefore don't get a say about who gets to sit in the other house, the one that represents everyone else (the commoners).

Peers have sought to challenge this over the years, but always failed to change it.

That only holds true for the GOP, now, who frequently have their traditional conservative seat holders get successfully primaried from the right. It's quite the reverse for Democrats, where heavily progressive candidates tend to lose to less left-leaning ones except in very specific districts. 

The Democratic primaries start with states that favor white progressives and then go towards the center as the later states enter. It's why Bernie supporters were so bitter in 2016 (and to a lesser extent, 2020), since Bernie took an early lead and then saw it erased as the calendar moved to the south. Many of them took this as a sign that shenanigans were afoot, a narrative that's been difficult to disabuse them of.

Except, as I noted upthread, that's not true for more than half the country, where people are free to vote in whichever primary they choose regardless of affiliation.  And if you take a close look at the states with closed primaries - which, by the way, are sometimes only closed for one party - they're mostly a) later in the calendar, and b) not battleground states (with the exception of Pennsylvania and Nevada, though the latter is a caucus state - and weirdly seems to have only moved to that recently).

It was inflation that got him into office this time, just like it was Covid that kicked him out of it last time. 

Note: I'm not saying ranked choice voting is more-or-less flawed or is-or-is-not preferable to our current electoral system, but you'd need to use a better case scenario than party primaries, which, again, aren't remotely as gated as you're maintaining.