Discussing an excellent piece by Hendrik Hertzberg about the indefensibility of the electoral college, Jon Chait makes an important point:
Whatever mental process Ross was employing, it's pretty clear she did not set out by defining the important goals of an electoral system and then, through careful side-by-side comparison, arrive at the conclusion that the electoral college best achieves these ends. ... I suspect that two factors are at work here. The first is an attachment to the status quo and a reverence for American political institutions of all stripes, which is certainly commendable up to a point (the point being a recognition of when the institution has failed.)
This tendency to develop ad hoc arguments to defend institutional arrangements nobody would defend if they were creating a constitution from scratch is particularly glaring with respect to the filibuster. I have a hard time believing that, say, Russ Feingold would support a super-majority vote rule 1) rarely seen in any of the world's democratic legislatures and 2) that would predictably obstruct many of his cherished legislative priorities. And unlike the electoral college, the filibuster isn't even established by the Constitution. It's a procedural rule under the Senate's discretion, and its current incarnation as an across-the-board supermajority requirement is actually a recent development. And yet, status quo bias is so strong that even the filibuster rule can generate a sentimental attachment among people who should know better.
-- Scott Lemieux
