I do not disagree with that. All I am saying that they did not deliver because of systemic factors rather than individual failures (albeit the latter undoubtedly played a role). The majoritarian system is a problem because it creates what deTocqueville aptly dubbed "tyranny of the majority" or a situation when people's concern over their private close-to-the-home interest leave the public concerns in hand of a tyrant. In such a situation, he who successfully links his policy agenda to those private concerns wins. Republicans were very successful in this game, in a big part because they unabashedly "champion" such personal concern issues as safety, quality of life or economic prosperity - which are of subtantial importance to most people. The best thing about these concerns is that they do not have any powerful instituional enemies - few institutions would defend a "right" to mug, rob, or annoy others, or hold that earning leass money or being out of a job is a virtue.
Democracts, otoh, tend to espouse issues that have substantial personal concern aspects, such as health care, prescription drugs, labor safety, urban renewal, or public transit - but which also have powerful instituional enemies (big pharma, insurance companies, developers or auto industry). This powerful institutional interests make their best to derail any attempt of a political party to address these concerns in a meaningful way.
That means that Dems have it rather difficult to attach themsleves to "their native" personal concern issues (health care, labor safety, etc.) but the Repugs do not. That forces the Dems to either fight against big business which opposes "their" personal concern issues or compete with the Repugs on their personal concerns turf.
A PR system would dimininish the influence big business has over any single party for several reasons. First, the basnece of the majoritarian rule would make it easier for a party to get some representation - and that would reduce their need to appease as many interest group and funding sources as possible to secure the majority support. They could still get something even if their alienated some powerful groups. Second, it would develop a closer bong between special interest groups and "their" political parties, which would make it more difficult to brak by negative campaign. That, in turn, would reduce the negative campaign run by big business to prevent effective representation of certain personal concerns (e.g. health care). Third, a multi-center netwrok is much more difficult to control than a centralized hierarchical structure, so a smorgasboard of political parties would be more resitant to big business control than a centralized two party system.
So the bottom line is that unless there is a serious political reform, this country will effective become a one party state.
Wojtek