Santucci is asking important questions. He knows better than nearly anyone that historically, US voting reform came about by reshuffling coalitions—eg, "junior" partners of the coalition in power making new alliances.

But I think the current situation may be different: https://twitter.com/jacksantucci/status/1246186167554527232

I think we're too far down the spiral of @leedrutman's "doom loops" for the old paths to work.

Cross-partisan coalition strong enough to get big structural change? Ask McConnell what he thinks.

Threat from new parties prompting reform buy-in? Ask a Nader voter if that worked.

Yes, I know; the thing about the future is that it can surprise you. But I've been looking for voting reform for 20 years now, I've seen plenty of things that surprised me, but none of them that make me think that a 3rd-party threat is a viable cornerstone for reform.

On the other hand, we have a uniquely broken system, with gerrymandering, Senate malapportionment, and a high-veto-point federal system all biasing outcomes in a way that is more and more clear in its net 2-party outcome.

IOW, a clear motive for one party to champion reform.

That is to say, the Democratic party has a clear interest in making outcomes more proportional but not more multipartisan. Right now, that interest would be weakened, not strengthened, by any plausible third-party threat. And the standard historical precedents don't correspond.

I'm a statistician, not a historian or a political scientist. People like @jacksantucci or @laderafrutal might know of historical precedents that do share this "unipartisan bias" aspect. I've pointed to UK 1832 as the only example I know of. I'd love to have more.

But if I'm right, this has *important* implications for how reform proposals should be designed.

(And that's where my expertise does in fact kick in. If we're designing voting methods — that should be a wider conversation, but one I'm surely gonna be able to contribute to.)