Conservatives Should Look More Closely at Systemic Election Reforms
Introduction
Public dissatisfaction with the federal government, and Congress in particular, has prompted a flurry of efforts to reform how elections are conducted. Among the proposed changes are systemic election reforms such as preferential voting (e.g., ranked-choice voting), open primaries, jungle and runoff elections, proportional representation, and nonpartisan redistricting. Supporters make different arguments for each of these electoral reforms. On the whole, however, they think their preferred reform will improve governance by improving candidates’ and officials’ incentives to govern in line with most voters’ wishes more often.
To date, conservatives have shown limited and varied interest in systemic election reforms. In some instances, they have supported such reforms. Mostly, however, they have barely engaged with these policies or actively opposed them. Their hesitance and reticence are somewhat surprising since conservatives frequently complain that officials elected under the regnant electoral system regularly fail to govern conservatively.
Elections are a centerpiece of representative government. They are the means for the people to choose who should govern. Hence, improving governance necessitates reconsidering how America selects its elected officials. It is widely recognized that first-past-the-post elections and partisan primaries create perverse incentives for candidates and elected officials.
Skepticism of change is wise, yet conservatives should not reflexively reject systemic election reforms. Instead, they should give systemic election reforms objective scrutiny, because it is the responsible thing to do and in their self-interest. Additionally, conservatives risk damaging their reputation with voters by reflexively defending the status quo. It is entirely possible that certain systemic reforms can advance conservative objectives. For example, the Republican Party of Virginia used ranked-choice voting to select a gubernatorial candidate—Glenn Youngkin—who then defeated a well-financed, popular Democrat.
Conservatives can give systemic election reforms due consideration through two means. First, leaders and thinkers on the right should examine whether the various reform options comport with normative criteria. (For example, do they promote healthy political competition and incentivize elected officials to listen to voters and lead responsibly?) Second, conservatives should bolster their corps of experts on systemic election reform, since presently, the electoral reform policy conversation is dominated by the political left and disaffected moderates, who are well armed with data and analyses.
