Democracy means ‘rulership by the people,’ but in America this translates to ‘rulership by the party.’ How can we fix America’s democracy?
The Short Version
- America prides itself on representing the needs of the people. But the winner-take-all system of elections has created a two party gridlock leaving many Americans under-represented. How can we fix American democracy?
- A functioning democracy guarantees rights, freedoms, justice and prosperity. A democracy spreads power between the most people, effectively opposing tyranny.
- Other countries have different systems of representing their citizens. Alternative systems like proportional voting could help represent individuals over parties.
- Radically changing our system may be needed to fix our problems, but it would take a long time. Meanwhile, other efforts to fight political corruption and increase representation can be pursued today.
Democracy is to America like peaches are to Georgia, The Lone Star is to Texas, The Empire State to New York. It’s right up there with Freedom as a country slogan and trademark. It is effectively enshrined in the preamble to the Constitution, “We the People of the United States…”
While that all looks great on paper, many have recognized that there is a clear separation between “the People” and “the Government.” Any reader of this blog will have recognized the rise in popularist candidates over the last several years. Populists have one major selling point: the system is failing you, and I’ll need to shake it up to fix it.
Why is the system failing us and why do we need to shake it up? Simple: party politics. But how can we fix American democracy? One of my favorite quotes about systems is the following: “Every system is designed to get the results it gets.” When we get results that are unsatisfactory, we need to evaluate the systems in place and change them to better achieve results. The systems we embrace can create barriers that prevent certain results and ensure others, no matter how hard we may prefer something different. America’s election system encourages two party gridlock at its core.
The Fundamental Problem
Let’s introduce the issue here. I’ve written other posts about how party politics isn’t good for America or for the average voter. In large part this is due to how our system is set up. Parties themselves have become entrenched in the electoral process. Gerrymandering, the process of changing electoral boundaries to favor one party, is very common in most states, and extremely restrictive to voters. Mix in various voting restrictions (or un-restrictions) depending on what the ruling party thinks will keep them in charge. And let’s not even get started on how skewed-to-the-party primary voting is. Combine that with a two party system with polar opposite values, and even if voters are disenfranchised with their own party they can’t really vote for the other guy. After all, swing voters don’t actually exist.
Since our elections are ‘winner takes all,’ only the person who can appeal to the most people is able to win. Electoral pundits tend to claim that “so-and-so won the election with the majority (51%) of voters supporting them.” But that is only technically true. Many people voted for the lesser of two evils, they don’t actually support the candidate. Are people represented when they have to pick a candidate they don’t even agree with just because the other guy was worse? Is the system representing people, or is it representing parties?
Money is essential to being the winner of a solo election. Additional advertising can get just enough votes to reach a majority. The highest donors can ‘buy’ the candidate they want, while less funded candidates lack the reach. Campaign money isn’t free though, candidates will need to ‘give back’ to their highest donors, typically through business subsidies or some other kind of market manipulation. There’s a reason people don’t see their needs being addressed by congress. They can’t afford it.
What’s the common thread here? What is the system allowing this to happen? The “winner take all voting” system.
Why is Democracy Important?
Before we go on, let’s consider why we would want a democratic society. Democracy is an ancient word, from the Greek ‘demos’ meaning ‘people’ and ‘kratos’ meaning ‘rule’. There are multiple ways to consider the definition of a democracy, but for simplicity I’m using the standard, layman definition. Most people might define a government as a democracy when they have free and fair elections. This is a bit simplistic, as merely being able to vote for someone doesn’t mean people are actually ‘ruling’ the government. To really be a democracy, individual rights such as freedom of speech and various legal protections must be in place. Competition between ideas must have equal opportunity. Laws must be enforced fairly and indiscriminately. Without these protections, coercion, oppression, and manipulation erode the fundamental meaning of democracy.
And yes, I know we often say that technically the United States is a representative republic, not a democracy. That may be a useful distinction if I were discussing this academically or defining how the votes translate into policy, but that isn’t my goal here. The typical use of the word democracy, which matches the popularly stated goal of the United States, is that the people’s will guides the government. There are actually groups, Democracy Matrix and Democracy Index, who determine how democratic a country is based on various factors. I don’t know that those factors are completely objective, but they provide some interesting qualifications that extend beyond the basic ‘you have the right to vote’ criteria.
So, why choose a democracy? Modern democracies are founded on the ideas of individual rights and a social contract. Without diving too deeply into it here, the premise is that governments exist to provide a stable and productive society. Individuals honor the government’s rule but expect the government to honor the social contract. The social contract includes guaranteeing human rights, freedoms, and opportunities.
Even if you don’t care about human rights, it is fairly plain that societies with the most advanced democratic systems also enjoy the greatest standard of living. When all members of a society have ownership in the society, they contribute the most. Unsurprising if you know anything about human motivation.
Equally, the more people hold control over power, the less likely tyranny can occur. A democracy helps guarantee individual rights and keeps the government focused on the governed. When special interest groups and wealthy individuals hold more power than the general public, the government begins to work primarily for them. Regulations favor interest groups over other constituents. In the US, the two party system creates the perfect setup for allowing people to vote, but special interest groups to hold power. As the general populace grows more ignored, people begin to wonder if American Democracy is actually working for them.
What do Other Democracies Look Like?
As any good American knows, our Democracy (or Representative Republic, for you die-hards out there) is the greatest. We are only hurting ourselves trying to learn lessons from other countries about literally anything. But let’s take a look, for, ya know, curiosity’s sake.
The Greeks started the first recorded democracy around 500 BC. Details from this time are vague, but several city states practiced direct democracy, where every adult male would vote on each issue. This resulted in a slower decision-making process, as well as providing great favoritism to those who could be most involved with the legislative process. Many countries today have elected representatives whose entire job is to research issues. In all likelihood this is actually more representative of the general population, as complicated issues can be properly considered and compared to the constituency’s needs. Having representatives doesn’t mean the people aren’t running the country.
As far as functioning democracies go, one most familiar to Americans is the British Parliament. If you’re like me you only know they have multiple parties who pick the prime minister and a Monarch who entertains the tabloids. In the UK parliament, the House of Commons is similar to the US’s House of Representatives. The members are selected by winner-take-all elections from 650 districts. This parliament selects the prime minister, who selects people to operate the government. Whichever party controls parliament controls the government. The opposing party creates a ‘Shadow Cabinet,’ which may sound like the Illuminati, but they actually just challenge the actions made by the current government. I don’t know if they like, write a rebuttal on twitter or something, it was hard to tell. The parliament has basically all the power, though there are other groups that do influence its actions.
The House of Lords is made up of nominated professionals who assist in passing laws. (I found that interesting as our government is primarily lawyers and salesmen.) Similar to the Senate but not elected or nearly as influential. And, of course, the Monarchy. The Monarchy heads 15 independent countries, and the Royal Family has the deeply important job of providing continual news for the tabloids. This essential role provides entertainment for millions and is only replicated in the US by the likes of the Kardashians. Regardless, aside from their cool party names (Labor is kinda dull, but Torries? All right!) I don’t see much difference from the US’s winner take all system. There is still the risk of easy gerrymandering, and the polarization of party platforms has the same advantages there.
Proportional Representation is a much more interesting voting system. In this system, the constituents vote for a party, and each party is assigned seats based on the percentage of votes received. 85 countries employ this system in some form, including Scandanavia, parts of Europe, and much of South America. This system allows minority parties to be elected and have a voice in the government. Your opinions as a voter don’t have to be swallowed up in the colossal blob that is the two-party system. Instead you can select a party that more closely matches your political views. Even if it only gets 3% of the vote, that is 3% of the representatives that actually agree with you.
As an example, consider the 2015 election in Canada (similar voting to the UK). The chart below compares how proportional voting would have changed seats assigned in the election. This election had one party win while getting less than 40% of the vote. Each red square would have been a seat in the parliament had those parties been selected by the proportion of people voting for them. Given that result, can we claim that the government actually represents the people of the country? I would expect similar results in the US. Of course, we would only have two lines due to lack of choices.
There are some drawbacks to this system. Proportional representation requires polling a large number of people. If only 2 seats are available, distributing seats based on proportions wouldn’t change the results. Districts end up covering a large geographic area so several seats can be available. In some cases this can be detrimental. For example, if we consider elections for representatives to an individual state government, electing someone from your community can be much more valuable than selecting a party that you agree with. With proportional voting, the constituents have a further degree of separation from their representatives. But their representatives are more likely to reflect their values. In the US, I contend that this would more easily apply to federal elections, where party lines are much more strict than in local elections.
Radical Democracy
My original ideas when I started this post don’t seem that radical after writing all that. Granted, asking people to wear seatbelts was considered radical once. And what’s the point of going through all this unless I get to let loose my incredible utopian ideals?
Firstly, I like the idea of a proportional voting system. Unfortunately, that would really only apply to the House, as the Senate is two for each state. But at a federal level, each representative accounts for about 750,000 people. Gerrymandering is so prevalent, and parties are so polarized, there is little hope of anyone with a view outside the mainstream ever being represented without proportional voting. (I know that sounds like letting in radicals, but at this point entire parties are shifting to crazier ideals to appeal to voters. So…) Assuming each state had proportional voting for representatives, a more diverse house could exist. Likewise, representatives would still channel their state’s wishes and be tied to their state. And Gerrymandering wouldn’t be an issue anymore, which I think would be worth it alone.
Getting a proportional system to work well might require a serious overhaul of our current voting system. But given the current political climate, where one party has an outrageous dedication to a single figure and the other is built on lip service, several voters are alienated with no recourse. I don’t know anyone who embodies the crazy polarized views of either party. A bit more variety could give some options back to the people and break the lack of change for us common folk.
Now, all that may require a constitutional amendment or something. But as a country who once amended the constitution to ban alcohol, I believe we have the capacity for such radical things!
I also think we should reduce the power of the office of President, and the Federal Government as a whole. The presidency keeps taking power while congress shirks responsibility, and that makes one man not just a very important candidate, but an almost religious figure to his followers. I believe spreading power out is the safest and best way to protect individual freedoms. But like I said, radical.
Regarding some more realistic options though, the group Represent Us fights for laws that increase representation. They focus on local laws that lessen party control over elections, reduce the influence of wealthy lobbyists, and increase representation of the American Voter. Here’s a recent post from them regarding poll results saying Americans feel threats to our Democracy are the greatest concerns in the nation.
Represent Us covers many of the things I would like to see in America’s Democracy. While reducing the influence of special action groups and wealthy donors is a good focus, without changing the system I think the problems will creep back in. Ranked choice voting is a cool example of system change. Ranked choice voting is where voters get to pick their most preferred candidate, then shift their vote to their second choice if the first doesn’t work out. I like ranked choice voting, as it adds incentive to appeal to more voters. I see this as a positive step. Not one that will break the two-party system, but at least it moves in the right direction. Term limits can also spread the representation around. Seriously, there are way more than 450 people who could fulfill the job of representative in a given year, why should we allow one person to rule for decades?
I support having elected representatives due to their hyper-focus on the many issues that need to be addressed. However, they sometimes lose connection with the people they represent. Some issues need to be addressed democratically. Issues that go to the general ballot should be taken seriously by the legislature and enforced, rather than revoked. People should be able to call into question legislative decisions, and if needed move these to a general ballot measure. While this isn’t a perfect solution, there are many cases where the legislature’s decisions align more with business owners than typical citizens. When the system ignores people, they have less trust in the system. This needs to change.
I also think it is important to note that those who make policy are there because they wanted to be there. If we do nothing but read and gripe about the issues that the country faces, nothing will really change. In a recent interview, Utah Governor Cox mentioned his surprise at how rarely he was contacted by people in his own district. He said most letters came from people outside his district. “That kind of stuff does not move the needle, at all. It doesn’t. But when someone took the time to actually call me, or send me a personalized email, who lived in my district, I would respond to that person. Now, not everyone does, but most of them [representatives] do, and you would be surprised,” he said.
We can reach out to our representatives, we can reach out to our neighbors, and we can let them know that we want to support a safe and fair democracy for our country. Act as an American citizen first, who believes in liberty, justice, and representation for all. While party politics want to drive us apart, our communities and our neighbors are what is really strong. By working together with respect for each other and the notion that ‘all men are created equal’ we can make societies that work for all of us, not just the party.
Thank you for reading. If you enjoyed this post or found the ideas interesting, please share it with others who might benefit from the message.