[EL] Polarization and reform

[Kogan, Vladimir]

If one is convinced by Andy’s supply-side argument —that polarization has increased because the type of candidates who are willing to run have become more extreme, then there is reason to worry about reforms like Fair Representation Act. Andy argues that one of the major costs of running that discourages moderates is the need to raise money from donors. And increasing district size (as the Fair Representation Act would do) would almost certainly increase the costs of campaigning, and the contributions necessary, which may actually further shrink the supply of willing candidates and skew it to be more extreme.

[The Ohio State University]
Vladimir Kogan, Associate Professor
Department of Political Science
2004 Derby Hall | 154 N. Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210-1373
510/415-4074 Mobile
614/292-9498 Office
614/292-1146 Fax
http://u.osu.edu/kogan.18/
kogan.18 at osu.edu<mailto:kogan.18 at osu.edu>
[Twitter icon]@vkoganosu<https://twitter.com/vkoganosu>


From: Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rob Richie
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2019 9:35 AM
To: law-election at UCI.EDU
Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 4/11/19

Looks like an important read. As people discuss electoral  reform and polarization, I would urge them to zero in on the potential of two proposals associated with my organization FairVote before coming to any conclusions about the impact of reform on polarization.

One is the Fair Representation Act as first introduced in Congress in 2017, and soon to be introduced in updated form this year. This modest statutory revision of winner take all congressional elections would provide backers of both major parties with the power to elect candidates in every part of the country, and reliably represent the left, center and right in any given area. Both David Brooks and Matthew  Yglesias last year wrote commentaries with headlines to the effect that this is the best approach to save our democracy. We provide detailed simulations of how it might work, and relevant commentary here.
https://www.fairvote.org/fair_rep_in_congress#why_we_need_the_fair_representation_act

The other proposal is to the Top Four primary: that is, modify the top two primary to advance more than two candidates, allow writeins, allow candidates and parties association rights,  and use ranked choice voting. While not as comprehensive as the Fair Representation Act, its potential impact is worth a close look.

An impressive group of political scientists and law professors evaluated the potential impact of a slew of 37 reforms back in 2015, putting the Fair Representation Act atop the list.  See the final report here:
https://www.fairvote.org/comparative-structural-reform

- Rob Richie


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190413/15d190d1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3605 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190413/15d190d1/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1351 bytes
Desc: image002.gif
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190413/15d190d1/attachment.gif>