Any history nerds who can explain how electoral reforms have come about since it seems like the incentive structure is completely aligned against the politicians currently in office ever seeing a pressing need to reform elections when it was those same elections that got them elected and so therefore benefit them personally, even if they acknowledge that they are imperfect systems.
It seems impossible. Bourgeois Democracy is such an endless crock of shit from top to bottom.
I used to be a big proponent of electoral reform, but the reality is that any reform that’s likely to be effective would be rejected by existing power structures absent some mass movement (and if you have a mass movement, you don’t really need electoral reform).
Justin Trudeau campaigned on electoral reform during his first run at PM, saying if he were to be elected, it would be the last election under a first-past-the-post electoral system. His follow through was to strike a multiparty committee to discuss the issue, and when the committee came back with a recommendation, he rejected it and tanked the issue because it wasn’t the solution his party wanted. He made a promise, he was handed a majority government as a result, a recommendation for reforms was made, and then he just went “lol nah.”
That’s what would happen to any electoral reform anywhere that might make things better, or make government more accountable, and certainly to any reform that would give the left any more influence. Electoral reform is a dead end, not because it can’t have an impact, but because for it to be effective, the existing power structure would have to cede some measure of control.