UCLA webinar on electoral reform
A fruitful discussion worth watching.
Last week I had the opportunity to participate in a one-hour discussion, hosted by Rick Hasen and the UCLA Safeguarding Democracy Project, on the topic of electoral reform as it relates to polarization and extremism. The other participants were Rick Pildes, Julia Azari, and Seth Masket. I thought it was a valuable discussion, particularly for showing the difference between Rick Pildes and me as advocates of this kind of reform for this reason, on the one hand, and Julia and Seth as more skeptical of electoral reform, on the other. Viewers can judge for themselves which side has the better of the argument. For my part, I continue to be surprised that many political scientists, whose field is supposed to be based on empirical data, seem impervious to the seemingly overwhelming evidence of how the existing electoral system exacerbates the problem of polarization that currently exists within the political culture and thus the value of experimenting with alternative electoral methods to determine what might be the best medicine for this disease.
Beyond what I said in the webinar itself, I would add here briefly that each passing week adds in my view to the available evidence on the necessity for this experimentation. If I am correct (as I have argued) that Nikki Haley would be president if last year’s election had been run under a Condorcet-based voting system or at least (as I have also contended) that Congress would be better positioned to constrain a despotic president if it were elected using Condorcet-based voting, then just think about how different the last few weeks would have been. No crazy tariff policies, or wild stock market gyrations as a result. No defiance of court orders regarding mistaken deportations. No mob-like shakedowns of major law firms because of disliked clients. Or, at the very least, Congress would be doing much more to exercise its constitutional function of curtailing abuse of presidential power.
Conditions with American democracy are so dire that surely it is worth a try to see if alternative electoral methods could repair the damage and remove the threat. In the webinar, Rick Hasen asked the crucial question: assuming we want this type of electoral reform, how do we get states to adopt it? My answer there and here remains the same: we must form as wide as possible coalition of Democrats, non-MAGA Republicans, and others to recognize the necessity of this change. That coalition would be a clear majority in most states, especially in the states where this kind of reform would matter most: red-leaning, but not extreme red, states like my home state of Ohio (and many others, like Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska). Democrats in those states should recognize that they would be better off determining which kind of Republican prevails (the less extreme kind), as they would be in position to do under a Condorcet voting system, rather than attempting to win statewide elections under the existing system (which they won’t be able to do in those states). Likewise, non-MAGA Republicans should realize that they can’t win under the existing system, even though their candidates would be most preferred by a majority of the state’s voters and thus would prevail in a Condorcet system.
Until this kind of coalition forms, electoral reform indeed will be unachievable. But if this coalition can come together, reform in many states would be unstoppable.