It's hard to disagree with much of Michael Waldman's lovely post. It is inviting at the level of principle (who, after all, is against creating a robust participatory democracy?). And he's right at the level of practice - matching funds and universal voter registration are entirely sensible policy proposals What Waldman doesn't say, however, is precisely why the proposals he offers will lead more people to engage with politics, and the why is far less idealistic than the happy notions of grassroots organizing and civic engagement that typically spring to the mind of progressives when they think about election reform. Political elites (parties, campaign organizations, political professionals, and candidates - all of the actors that progressives tend to disdain) are all but essential for generating the type of participatory energy and engagement that Waldman seeks.

When issues rise to the top of the agenda or voters get engaged, it's almost always because of political leaders. As any political scientist will tell you, political elites play a crucial role in framing issues, identifying untapped sources of voter dissatisfaction, and building new coalitions. Robert Bennet calls them "conversational entrepreneurs" and argues they are essential to democracy. Barack Obama is rightly described as a movement guy, someone who understands grass roots organizing. But Obama didn't spark a national movement when he was working for a small nonprofit in Chicago. He did it when he started working with campaign consultants, party leaders, and party donors. It's ugly, but effective.

The key, then, is not to try to bypass or suppress elite energies, but to direct them into the right channels. Waldman's proposals do just that. A matching rule would give politicians a reason to reach out to poor and middle-class voters. Universal voter registration would lower the costs of political organizing for communities that politicians have thus far neglected. Both proposals redirect the energies of political elites, giving them a reason to organize people whom politicians have thus far had no incentive to reach.

Academics have a bad tendency to divide into two camps. Those who care about participatory politics tends to want to take political elites out of the election process, to leave democracy to the people alone. Those who assume elites will inevitably play a central role in electoral politics pride themselves on having a clear-eyed view of power while neglecting the normative force of the participatory democrats' vision. In my view, there is a middle way. The key is to align elite incentives with those of the people, to redirect elites energies into more productive channels. That's why Waldman's proposals make sense. They harness politics to fix politics.