Clinton didn’t offer many details about her plan. Her campaign did not specify how much candidates would receive in matching funds or up to what limit, but according to her plan, candidates would have to raise a certain amount in order to qualify. That minimum would prevent candidates with no support from spending taxpayer funds on pointless campaigns.

Rick Hasen, a legal scholar at the University of California, Irvine, said Clinton had “a sensible approach,” adding, “We know it works in New York.”

He and other experts have also proposed a different system, in which each voter would get a voucher from the government which they could give to the candidate of their choice, instead of putting up cash. Making it free to donate could encourage more moderate voters to participate.

Others argued that giving voters with divergent views more power isn’t necessarily bad. Voters labeled extreme with the measures used by political scientists are often just more consistently liberal or conservative, which doesn’t mean their opinions are wrong.

“It doesn’t meant they’re wild eyed extremists. They have more consistent views. That’s a good thing,” said Tom Mann, a scholar at the Brookings Institution.