Thank you, Dave, for your reply. Good reading.
Canada is lucky. It has winner-take-all districts, but it does not have presidential elections that make people go black-and-white in their thinking. Also, having a substantial French-speaking population may have helped to create more than one split, more than two political concentrations of just A or B.
As I see it, if we desire a free market (and I do), then we should have a division of power that delivers the most to the voters. Free market, full representation. I do not think that bodes well for the winner-take-all system, but also not for RCV nor getting rid of all parties.
I am aware that voters in nations with proportional voting are still complaining about politics. But it is not about the complaints we should have a discussion, but about the real outcomes such as the share of wealth the bottom 10% of a nation is receiving. Or the number of female representatives, much stronger presence in nations with proportional voting than with winner-takes-all (statistically significant). If folks are not represented at the decision table (as with district elections and therefore with RCV), then the outcome is inferior (if you allow me to use this negative word) for the voter in general, not for the specific voter (referred to by me as part of the elite).
I know a fascinating example from the Netherlands how PR works its magic. Out of the blue, a 65+ party had appeared, some twenty years ago. All other parties were scratching their heads because they had not anticipated how the elderly could have become a party, receiving 4% of the votes. The beauty of the system was not that the party appeared, but that it disappeared in the next election. Many parties had started a conversation with the elderly and learned what they wanted and needed, plus, they started providing what was needed. As a result, these voters didn’t need to vote for a separate party anymore.
1992 is an important year. WTO is set up. With the WTO the power of the voters in all participating nations diminished, because there is now a single platform that can get influenced less well. One may state that it was for the greater good (or the greater goods), but having all these nations with all these different systems agreeing on economic goods, but not on social goods, simply creates frustration. It diminishes the realm of democracy when there are separate deals made ‘on the side’ that involves not everything but just part of societies. A refined democracy, such as with proportional voting, can get snowed under by the less-refined democracies, such as winner-takes-all.
Let me finish asking you how getting rid of all parties makes the average voter stronger, not in light of participation, but in light of getting overall better results. What effect would your proposal have on the bottom 10% of society and their share of the cake? What effect will it have for female representation, issues important to women?