Well . . .

1. It's good because it creates a principled vision of how America should work that is distinct from tired and broken political issues. In part, it's new. In part, it says that we realize things aren't perfect, but we want to do our best to make sure that the views of all Americans have a place in government.

In part, I think it's good because the political middle is practical. They aren't ideologues and they're looking for government to help them make their lives a little better. They're not worried about ideas, but solutions.

Reforming legislative processes is about ensuring that people are actually represented in their government. This is who we are--we're the democratic party. It exposes Republicans who are ideologues. It exposes right wingers who only want to impose their beliefs on the whole of the nation--people who are more interested in their own power than doing what's best for the American people.

In a way, it comes back to a Holmesian conception of a democracy in which the structures of government allow robust political discourse and the people ultimately get to decide, even if we think they're wrong sometimes, and even if sometimes we lose. So, it says that we care about doing what the country wants more than we care about being in power. It's that we care about doing what the American people want, even if we can never control the entire government.

Update: I also think it is good because the polarization right now makes people feel excluded from the government. They're looking around and saying that this system doesn't represent them. It's a way to appeal to people--we're going to bring you back in, give you a say again.

That's part of the reason we started this blog: We're two guys from the Midwest and we're not seeing politicians appealing to what we believe in.

2. I'm not yet sure how to answer this one. My answer would be related to my belief that most people are in the center and are forced to split in favor of candidates who roughly approximate their beliefs at best. It is government for the people, and 'the people' aren't just 51% of the population. The people is the whole of the population. So, in order for a government to be truly democratic, it must be as inclusive as possible.

One of the problems I have had in expressing myself is that there can be an equivocation in the term 'anti-majoritarian.' I believe there exists a natural majority in the middle. That people in the center of the bell curve pretty much agree on most issues. Our system is designed to be against that majority. It's more representative of the extremes than of the actual majority. That's the polarization story, isn't it? So, inclusivity is good because it reaches across the artificial divide created by winner-take-all elections.