Yeah, that's also my take: if you introduce a weird new voting system and voters don't like it, it's not just one step in a progression of incremental reform th

Yeah, that's also my take: if you introduce a weird new voting system and voters don't like it, it's not just one step in a progression of incremental reform that will eventually lead us to a smoothly-functioning democracy. Rather, voters will just demand we revert back to the old system because (as far as they can see) that fancy voting nonsense is all junk. Then we'll be stuck with FPTP until either democracy fails outright or the previous attempt at reform has been forgotten, perhaps in a hundred years or so, and someone tries again. When you're changing the basic mechanisms of voting, you don't get any do-overs. I am optimistic that within the last couple of years, it seems that any online conversation about RCV among even moderately technical/nerdy groups of people seems to almost always include someone bringing up the downsides of RCV and the better alternatives. I used to kind of dread RCV discussion threads because I felt like I ought to explain the problems, but it's very technical and abstract. Now I usually find someone has already written what I would have said, often in a more concise, clear way.