Isn't MCAS a solution to address greater nose pitch-up due to stronger thrust vectoring effects from the new engines? In a dual engine flameout where all thrust is lost, doesn't thrust vectoring cease to be an issue?
That's why this damn kludge of a system is so concerning. It's an active airworthyness hack to counter a passive aerodynamic characteristic of the airframe.
So if a double flameout occurs, killing all power, and killing the Flight Control Computer due to unreliable voltage being supplied from the Ram Air Turbine, the pilots are stuck flying a glider that'll try to pitch into a stall on them if they aren't careful.
Again, normally wouldn't worry about something like this, but they missed/intentionally left out the single AoA sensor...
So...yeah... I have severe concerns about this design, and the effort put into known, unlikely, but highly severe failures.
Maybe you shouldn't post such strong statements about a technology you know very little about.
First: The 737 does not actually have a RAT.
Second: On types that have a RAT (e.g. the A320) it isn't electrical, it provides hydraulic power to operate the flight controls.
If you need emergency electrical power from a RAT equipped aircraft it will be from an haudraulically driven AC generator through a constant speed drive. It will not have voltage fluctuations, only risk is frequency being off and aircraft systems are designed to deal with that.