Defining Democracy
The first step in making America a more perfect democracy is to promote a shared understanding of the elements that make "the form of a government...a perfect democracy". And that begins with a clear and concise definition of democracy.
In his essay “Politics and the English Language”, George Orwell made the point that "the great enemy of clear language is insincerity”, resulting from “a gap between one's real and one's declared aims”. In that context, he identifies some political words that have been “abused” to the point that they have “several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another”. With regard to democracy, he says:
"In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic, we are praising it: consequently, the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning."
George Orwell
The Essential Elements of a Perfect Democracy
In his Second Treatise of Government (1689), John Locke identified and discussed (at some length) the elements that would make the form of a government “a perfect democracy”: majority rule, an equal vote and/or equal representation for every member of a society, and the supremacy of the legislature. Majority rule is the essential element that makes a government a democracy. The other elements flow from majority rule.
The will of the majority of the people cannot be accurately determined unless all of the members of a society have an equal vote and/or equal representation as the laws are made. Locke stressed that “the first and fundamental positive lawof all commonwealths is the establishing of the legislative power” and that “nobody can have a power to make laws, but by "the consent of the society”. He also emphasized that “the “legislative (power) is not only the supreme power of the common-wealth, but (is) sacred and unalterable in the hands where the community have once placed it.”
It is important to remember, however, that although the legislative power is supreme, it is not unlimited. “The end of lawis not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom”. And “the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of anybody, even of their legislators, whenever they shall be so foolish, or so wicked, as to lay and carry on designs against the liberties and properties of the subject(s)”.
In a system of government where the legislature is supreme and accurately represents the will of a majority of the people, no other branch or part of a government can be permitted to overrule the will of the majority of the people. The role of the executive (the president, governor, or mayor) is to simply carry out, implement, and enforce the laws and public policies put in place by the legislature (whether the legislative power is being exercised by the people voting directly, or indirectly through representatives chosen by the people). The proper role of the courts is to determine if laws have been broken and determine the appropriate punishment when laws have been broken. In a perfect democracy, the courts have no authority to nullify acts of the legislature. Any practice or provision that allows a minority, however constituted, to overrule the will of the majority is, by definition, anti-democratic, and must be prevented and prohibited.
Locke also made it clear that the people retained the right to alter the form of their government: “When the people are made miserable” by “the miscarriages of those in authority…the people have a right to act as supreme and continue the legislative in themselves; or erect a new form, or under the old form place it in new hands, as they think good.
John Locke - The Original Champion of Democracy
Our Constitution is in conflict with our ideals
Although the word “democracy” does not appear anywhere in the Declaration of Independence, a government in which the “just powers” of government are derived from “the consent of the governed” is a democracy. The word “democracy” also does not appear anywhere in our Constitution - although Article IV, Section 4 does “guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government” – in other words, a representative democracy.
In a democracy, the “just powers” of government (including laws and public policies) are derived from “the consent of the governed”. How do “the governed” give their consent? By voting – directly or indirectly. And when the votes are counted, the will of the majority must prevail.
The antidemocratic provisions embedded in the Constitution created a form of government that is in conflict with the essential elements of a perfect democracy, as identified by John Locke, and with the ideals upon which our nation was founded, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
Locke’s ideas were put into practice (briefly) and in the thirteen newly created “Free and Independent States” formed by the Declaration of Independence and our victory in the American Revolution. But the “firm league of friendship” that was formed by those thirteen states under “The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union” did not turn out to be perpetual. Six short years after the Articles of Confederation was formally adopted, twelve of the thirteen states sent delegates to a convention “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. The delegates decided to ignore the resolution that had called for the convention and draft an entirely new document. When the Constitution was ratified, the thirteen formerly sovereign states merged into a single larger nation. Democracy in America suffered grievously in the transition.
As documented in the Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, recorded by James Madison, a majority of the delegates to that convention, at which our Constitution was drafted, were strongly opposed to democracy. Meeting behind closed doors, and having taken a vow of secrecy, the Framers of our Constitution were free to speak openly. And Madison’s note document the fact that nineteen of the delegates were openly hostile to democracy, four of the delegates spoke out in defense of democracy, and the remaining delegates generally sided with the nineteen antidemocratic delegates when votes were taken on the motions that became the Constitution.
Even though the right to vote at that time was generally limited to white males over the age of 21 – often with additional requirements related to the ownership of land or a minimum net worth, the delegates were reluctant to allow “the people” to have any role whatsoever in the new government. They finally agreed to let the people elect the members of the House of Representatives, because they knew they needed to include at least some element of democracy in order to get the Constitution ratified.
The system of “checks and balances” that was put in place by our Constitution was intended to provide a series of “successive filtrations” of the will of the people in the form of numerous antidemocratic provisions explicitly designed to allow the wealthy and “well-born” to prevent any rash measures favored by the people from being enacted without their approval. One of the most antidemocratic provisions they adopted was an amendment process that included super-majority requirements to both propose and ratify any changes to the document they drafted. That has made it very difficult for later generations of Americans to alter the form of government in the United States.
Any provision or practice that enables a minority to overrule the majority is antidemocratic. If we want America to be a perfect democracy (or even a true democracy) we must amend our Constitution.
We also need to find a better way to select our representatives. Locke underestimated the difficulty societies would encounter in constituting legislatures that accurately reflect the will of the people. The less accurately the legislature represents the will of the people, the greater the distance between a representative democracy and a “perfect democracy”. Nearly a century after Locke wrote his Second Treatise of Government, John Adams offered an excellent description of the qualities that the ideal “Representative Assembly” should possess. His description remains extremely relevant today:
Locke underestimated the difficulty societies would encounter in constituting legislatures that accurately reflect the will of the people. The less accurately the legislature represents the will of the people, the greater the distance between a representative democracy and a “perfect democracy”. Nearly a century after Locke wrote his Second Treatise of Government, John Adams offered an excellent description of the qualities that the ideal “Representative Assembly” should possess. His description remains extremely relevant today:
If the legislature is to be supreme within a “perfect democracy”, Adams’ criteria for the ideal representative assembly must be met. We have fallen far short of that ideal.
Polls consistently show that a solid majority of Americans favor a lengthy list of critically needed legislation that has not been passed by Congress, and is not likely to be passed anytime soon, within the present gridlocked, dysfunctional system: a federal job guarantee, access to affordable health care, as a right; a proper response to the existential threat posed by global warming, lower prescription drug prices; universal background checks and an assault weapons ban; codification of Roe v. Wade to keep abortion safe, legal, and rare; et cetera, et cetera…
The feeling on the part of many Americans, that what we want from our government doesn’t really matter, is confirmed by extensive research into the correlation between the will of the people and the acts of Congress. As one pair of researchers concluded: “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”
In other words, the people in the United States who claim their votes don’t matter are basically correct. The false friends and true enemies of democracy, who are in the majority in Congress (and in every state legislature) don’t care much at all about what we, the people, want. They serve the interests of their corporate benefactors and the tax-averse billionaires that give them the money they need to get elected and repeatedly reelected. Much of the money raised is used to launch deadly waves of attack ads aimed at any Champions of Democracy who seem likely to threaten their incumbency.
Implementing ranked choice voting would help, especially if combined with at-large elections, or at least multiple-member districts, for seats in Congress and state legislatures. But RCV will not be enough, in and of itself, to make America a perfect democracy.
Given the deep and serious flaws in the manner in which we conduct elections, the corruption that has infected our political system, and the numerous anti-democratic provisions embedded in our Constitution, if we want government OF the people to be government FOR the people, we must have GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE. Fortunately, there is a simple way to take power away from corporate interests and plutocrats and give POWER TO THE PEOPLE - proxies for citizens.
FOUR FOUNDATIONAL REFORMS
The “initiative” allows citizens to initiate (introduce) legislation directly, without the involvement or approval of the legislature or governor, by signing petitions. A “referendum” is a direct vote by the people on a piece of legislation that has been referred to them for approval, either by the legislature or through the initiative process. In most cases, a simple majority determines the outcome of a referendum.
The adoption of these two powerful forms of direct democracy in twenty-four states was one of the most significant and enduring victories of the Progressive movement in America that took place in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Initiatives and referendums on laws and/or constitutional amendments are also in place in eleven countries around the world. [Columbia, Croatia, Ecuador, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Philippines, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, and Taiwan.] Numerous other countries have held nationwide referendums from time to time. It 's time for the United States to give all of its citizens the initiative and referendum at the national level.
Ranked choice voting is a method of voting that allows voters to cast votes for more than one candidate, ranking their choices in order of preference. When used in an election where there is a single winner - an executive office, such as president, governor, lieutenant governor, et cetera; or for seats in a legislature with single-member districts - the tabulation method for ranked choice voting ensures that winning candidates have the support of a majority of the voters (at some level of preference) instead of just a plurality (the most votes, even if that is less than a majority). This is in harmony with the primary principle of democracy – majority rule.
Using ranked choice voting in at-large elections or in multi-member districts to elect members of a legislative body results in a form of proportional representation – with political parties or other collections of like-minded voters holding a percentage of the seats in a legislature roughly equal to the percentage of the votes candidates from each party receive in an election. This results in legislatures that more accurately reflect the will of the people – another primary principle of democracy.
A proxy is the authority to represent someone else, especially in voting. When you assign your proxy to someone, you authorize them to vote on your behalf.
The best way to ensure that votes taken in Congress and state legislatures accurately reflect the will of the people, is to give every citizen who is governed by the laws passed by a legislative body, a proxy that can be assigned to any member of that legislative body, and then allow each legislator to cast a number of votes equal to the number of proxies they hold (plus one for themselves) on every matter that comes before that legislative body (including votes taken in committees and on procedural matters).
Implementing a system of proxies for citizens will fundamentally alter the nature of the relationship between citizens and their representatives. Proxies will instantly transform corrupted legislatures into truly democratic institutions and bring us as close to "pure democracy" as possible in a representative democracy.
The supermajority requirements for amending our Constitution that are embedded in Article V - requiring a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress or the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to even propose an amendment, which must then be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, makes it possible for a very small minority of our elected representatives to block any and all amendments favored by sizable majorities of our elected representatives and leaves the citizens of America out of the process almost entirely.
In a democracy, the amendment process itself should be democratic. Allowing constitutional amendments to be proposed by a simple majority vote in either the Senate or the House of Representatives and ratified by a majority vote of the people will bring our Constitution in line with the essential element of democracy – majority rule. A democratic amendment process is absolutely necessary for us to live up to one of the ideals upon which our government was founded – that governments derive their “just powers” from “the consent of the governed”.