On Publicity and Unpredictible Electoral College Reform

• In Event: Normative Reflections on Parties & Elections

Abstract

What normative principles ought to constrain electoral reforms? Much of the normative justifications in favor of democracy rely on how democratic systems allow people to be treated equally and fairly. Taurek’s (1977) classic argument against aggregation argues that if every person is supposed to receive equal respect and concern, then we should give every person equal chance of having their preferences satisfied. Given empirical facts about polarization, current electoral systems cannot give everyone equal consideration. I discuss two institutional contexts—gerrymandered districts and the Electoral College—and argue that equal consideration requires increasing election competition. Unfortunately, because Taurek’s “equal treatment” concern is so counterintuitive, improving competition will minimize democratic legitimacy in a different way: by undermining publicity. As such, to be effective, electoral reforms must consider publicity concerns and move beyond aggregation to focus more on showing people that they are being treated fairly by politics. This paper draws on the "renovation" component of this year's APSA theme.

Author

• Sam Koreman, University of Virginia