Why Democrats should want range voting (Executive summary)
Democrats and the USA were hurt by Plurality voting
in 2000 when it caused Albert Gore to lose to George W. Bush
in Florida and hence the USA. Almost any other voting system
(IRV, Condorcet, Borda, Range, Approval...) would have elected Gore
thanks to the preferences of the Nader voters in Florida.
The Democrats then hurt the Naderites and themselves in a warlike
revenge frenzy. But with range voting, Naderites would be the
ally, and not their hated enemy. Wouldn't that be more logical?
In general the better candidate usually loses in a 3-way race
because he splits the vote with a popular and similar third-party
(who is probably more similar to the better candidate, since
that was why he was popular).
Range voting fixes that pathology. The cost of
even a single one of these bad events hugely exceeds the
cost of switching to range voting.
Even without fixing the USA's system – just doing your own primary elections
via range voting (much easier task) – you will be able to get ahead and enjoy
huge long-term advantages over the Republicans, including significantly better chance of winning
As a start we suggest trying this in Iowa 2008.