How well-meaning political reformers are helping to elect President Trump

[Commentary] Academic hand-wringing rarely changes political institutions. But political science researchers’ recent obsession with political polarization seems to be having some impact. These researchers argue that polarization has “put the nation at risk” and are championing reforms meant to stem it. The remedies proposed are many — from reforming campaign finance to changing the primary system — and all share a common theme: By shifting more political power to everyday people, academics believe that extreme politicians would be encouraged to heed the public’s centrist demands. The widespread view that citizens are more centrist than politicians seems obvious, but it’s actually misleading at best. And worse, it’s endangering our democracy.

Students of polarization and pundits alike bemoan a “disconnect” between extreme elites and centrist voters, arguing that voters must urgently be empowered to resolve it. But what if voters would actually like to see today’s politicians become more extreme on many issues? What if many voters actually do, at the end of the day, agree with Donald Trump? In that case, reforms that empower voters may have less appealing effects than supporters argue. Advocates of reforms would be wise to consider this possibility as they upend centuries-old institutions in the name of democracy. Faithful representation of public opinion is scarcely the sole standard to which representative democracy aspires.

[David Broockman is an assistant professor of political economy at the Stanford Graduate School of Business]