Democracy in America?

How Democratic is Our Government?

It is common and natural for people to exhibit a noticeable bias in favor of their own country when comparing countries in various ways. One form that bias often takes is believing one’s own country to be more democratic than it is. That is certainly true of many Americans. Our government is not nearly as democratic as many Americans believe it to be.

Many Americans have a negative opinion of most, if not all, politicians and of both major political parties. Many Americans harbor negative views regarding government in general and the federal government (“Washington, D. C.”) in particular. Most Americans realize that our political system has been corrupted by money; feel that our votes rarely, if ever, matter; and believe that, due to the dominance of the two major political parties, we are forced, in most elections, to choose between the “lesser-of-two evils”. Some Americans understand that gerrymandering has left voters, in most congressional and legislative districts, with no meaningful choice at all in general elections for Congress and state legislatures.

Despite these strongly negative views, most Americans also believe our nation was the birthplace of democracy in the modern world, that our government is the most democratic in the world and the greatest democracy in the history of the world, and that most other democratic nations have modeled their constitutions on ours. Our educational system and mainstream media continuously reinforce these examples of American exceptionalism.

We do have a reasonably legitimate claim to being the birthplace of democracy in the modern world.

The Declaration of Independence, ratified by victory in the American Revolution, transformed thirteen British colonies into “Free and Independent States” that were “Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown”. Monarchies had been the dominant form of government in Europe since the fall of Athens and the end of the Roman Republic. We were the first nation to replace a monarch with governments in those newly independent states that were at least somewhat democratic.

The facts do not back up the other examples of American exceptionalism.

There have been, and are, many countries with governments more democratic than ours.

Regarding the beliefs, common among American, that we are the greatest democracy in the world and the greatest democracy in the history of the world, at least two objective sources offer evidence to the contrary.

In its annual “Freedom in the World” report, Freedom House rates over 200 countries and territories in terms of people’s access to political rights and civil liberties ranging from the right to vote to freedom of expression and equality before the law. More than 50 countries currently rank higher than the United States.

The Democracy Index, which has been published annually since 2006, by the Intelligence Unit of The Economist, ranks the nations of the world from most democratic to least democratic based on the “extent to which citizens can choose their political leaders in free and fair elections, enjoy civil liberties, prefer democracy over other political systems, can and do participate in politics, and have a functioning government that acts on their behalf”. Nations are given numerical scores on a total of 60 indicators and grouped into four categories: Full Democracies, Flawed Democracies, Hybrid Regimes, and Authoritarian Regimes.

The United States has never been ranked as the most democratic country in the world and has been classified as a flawed democracy since 2016. In the 2025 Democracy Index, the United States was ranked as the 34th most democratic country in the world.

Given these rankings from two objective and authoritative sources, it should come as no surprise to find that -

No other countries have modeled their constitutions on ours.

In How Democratic is the American Constitution? (2001), constitutional scholar Robert A. Dahl examined twenty-two “advanced democratic countries” and compared the form of government put in place by our Constitution to the constitutions of the other democracies. He thoroughly documented the fact that, "Among the countries most comparable to the United States and where democratic institutions have long existed without breakdown, not one has adopted our American constitutional system. It would be fair to say that without a single exception they have all rejected it."

Dahl’s answer to the question he posed in the title? Our Constitution is not very democratic.

There are numerous provisions embedded in our Constitution that are in direct conflict with the basic principles of democracy. On one measure after another, we fall short of nearly all the other advanced democracies in terms of adherence to democratic ideals.

Dahl cited one example after another where other nations have learned from our mistakes. It’s time for us to learn from the successes of other nations and enact some of the reforms that have made their governments more democratic than ours.

Is our government a true democracy?

The authors of The Democracy Index acknowledge that “Some insist that democracy is, necessarily, a dichotomous concept: a state is either democratic or not.” There is a great deal of validity in that assertion. Democracy is government by the people. The people either rule or they don’t rule. If the public policies that are put in place and the laws that are enacted reflect the will of a majority of the people, a government is a democracy. If the public policies that are put in place and the laws that are enacted do not reflect the will of a majority of the people, and especially when they conflict with the will of the majority of the people, no matter how many of the trappings of democracy may be in place, a government is not truly democratic.

On the other hand, if a state or nation has universal suffrage and conducts free and fair elections that leave open the possibility of reforming the government, a nation may be a democracy even if the citizens have failed to reform a flawed system. Such a government may be properly considered to be (in the terms used by the Democracy Index) a “flawed democracy” or a “hybrid regime”.

If a nation-state is “either democratic or not”, the United States at present, is not a democracy. Majority rule is the essential element that makes a government a true democracy. Common sense and observation tell us, and research confirms, that “Majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. [From a study by Benjamin I. Page and Martin Gilens as reported in their book Democracy in America?]

However, since we, the people of the United States, have universal suffrage and reasonably free and fair elections, we already have all the power we need to enact the reforms needed to make America a Perfect Democracy. Importantly, we have the power to do that peacefully, through elections within the system that is in place. With that being the case, the authors of the Democracy Index are correct in labeling our government a flawed democracy.

Is our government an oligarchy?

John Locke acknowledged the right of a majority of the citizens of a community, state, or nation to “put the power of making laws into the hands of a few select men” but stated that “then it is an oligarchy.” Because a minority of Americans were allowed to vote at the time of our nation’s founding, far less than a majority of Americans alive at the time ratified the Constitution of the United States, even though it not only “put the power of making laws into the hands of a few select men” but included numerous other anti-democratic provisions. The framers of our Constitution believed they were establishing an aristocracy. As Locke predicted, they created an oligarchy – government by the few and for their “private interests”.

Although some of America’s Founders were inspired by John Locke and sought to put a true democracy in place, in the end, the false friends and true enemies of democracy succeeded in getting a constitution drafted and ratified that they managed to pass off as a democracy but was not a true democracy. The natural bias that has led many Americans to believe we are the greatest democracy in the world and in the history of the world has helped the false friends and true enemies of democracy maintain that illusion. To see through that illusion and make America a Perfect Democracy -

We need to understand and acknowledge the flaws in our political and electoral systems.

Nearly all the flaws in our version of democracy can be traced to two sources: anti-democratic provisions embedded in our Constitution and flaws in the way we conduct elections.

The first step in making America a Perfect Democracy is to understand, accept, and acknowledge the inconvenient Truth that our government is not the most democratic in the world. The body of our Constitution contains numerous anti-democratic provisions put in place by the framers of our Constitution and the way we elect our “representatives” in Congress and state legislatures has resulted in a system that represents corporate interests and billionaires, not us (the people).

The Federal Convention of 1787

The Greatest Assault on Democracy in American History

There is a great deal of discussion these days about how democracy is under assault in America. That is true. It is also true that democracy is always under assault – anytime and anywhere it manages to take root and blossom. The most successful assault on democracy in the history of America took place over a long, hot summer in Philadelphia in 1787, as fifty-five men of commerce, many of them slaveowners, all of them relatively wealthy by the standards of the day, drafted our Constitution.

As the delegates debated the details of the form of the government they hoped to put in place, the pros and cons of democracy were hotly debated. That portion of the deliberations constituted the greatest and most consequential debate on democracy that has ever been conducted. Democracy lost. Many of the flaws that continue to plague democracy in America two and a half centuries later can be traced to the fact that most of the delegates to the convention that drafted our Constitution were strongly opposed to democracy.

Madison's Contribution to the Historical Record

One of the first decisions made by the delegates to the convention was to keep their deliberations private. Nothing spoken in the convention was to be repeated outside the convention or made public.

Despite the vow of secrecy that had been adopted, several of the delegates took notes. James Madison was far and away the most active in that regard. He attended every session and took comprehensive notes, using a system of shorthand he devised himself. His stated purpose was to preserve a historical record of the proceedings. He succeeded admirably. Thanks to his efforts, we have an excellent and reliable record of what was said at the Federal Convention of 1787.

The other delegates in attendance knew that he was taking notes. In fact, he routinely checked with those who had spoken each day to verify that he had captured the essence of their remarks accurately. They knew that they could trust him not to share those notes publicly. And their trust was well placed. The notes that Madison took were not published until after his death and as the youngest of the delegates, he was the last to pass away.

Madison’s Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 fully accomplished his stated objective of preserving for history a record of the debates that took place at the Convention – “the process, the principles, the reasons & the anticipations, which prevailed in the formation of” our Constitution.

Meeting behind closed doors and having taken a vow of secrecy, the Framers of our Constitution were free to free to share their true feelings about democracy. Madison’s notes are the most complete and most accurate record of what was said and who said it.

As documented by Madison, most of the men who drafted our Constitution were openly hostile to democracy. Only four of the delegates spoke out in favor of democracy. Nineteen of the delegates spoke out harshly against democracy. And the remaining delegates generally sided with the antidemocratic delegates when votes were taken on the motions that were made in the convention that then became our Constitution.

Most of the delegates did not want to allow “the people” to have any role whatsoever in the new government. In the end, the delegates reluctantly agreed to let the people elect the members of the House of Representatives because they knew that if they did not allow the people to have some voice in the government, it would be difficult to get the Constitution ratified.

Quotes from the Framers of our Constitution

Here are a few examples of what some of the delegates had to say, in their own words:

One of the most outspoken critics of democracy was Elbridge Gerry. (Gerry became the namesake of the term “gerrymandering” when he drew an electoral map that contained district lines so convoluted that some people thought one district resembled a salamander.) Gerry believed that: “The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy.” (Gerrymandering is, of course, one of the “evils” that continue to plague and corrupt our electoral system today.)

Roger Sherman “opposed the election by the people", insisting that it ought to be by the State Legislatures. "The people should have as little to do as may be about the Government. They (lack) information and are constantly liable to be misled.”

John Dickenson considered “a limited Monarchy" to be "one of the best Governments in the world." And stated that “It was not certain that the same blessings were derivable from any other form. It was certain that equal blessings had never yet been derived from any of the republican form.”

Edmund Randolph observed that “the general object was to provide a cure for the evils under which the U. S. labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.” Randolph also made the intended relationship between the House and the Senate very clear, when he stated that, “The democratic licentiousness of the State Legislatures proved the necessity of a firm Senate. The object of this second branch is to control the democratic branch of the National Legislature.” [Page 110.]

William Livingston stated that, “The people ever have been and ever will be unfit to retain the exercise of power in their own hands; they must, of necessity, delegate it somewhere.” Livingston’s inclusion of the word “retain” is significant. It implies that power is originally in the hands of the people. With that being the case, it begs the question, if the people are “unfit” to “retain” power, and “must of necessity delegate it somewhere”, how then are they capable of deciding where, how, and to whom to delegate power?

In comments he made about the uprising known as “Shay’s Rebellion”, Alexander Hamilton voiced his lack of faith in the wisdom of the average voter: "All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well-born, the other the mass of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right."

Regarding the election of the president, George Mason, “conceived it would be as unnatural to refer the choice of a proper character for chief Magistrate to the people, as it would, to refer a trial of colors to a blind man.” Charles Pinkney agreed, saying that “An election by the people being liable to the most obvious and striking objections. They will be led by a few active and designing men.”

It may come as a shock to many Americans to learn that the men who drafted our Constitution, with few exceptions, were not fond of democracy. They did not trust “the people” to vote wisely. They knew, however, that they could not leave the people out of the government altogether. The Declaration of Independence had stirred the passions of Americans by stating that governments derive their "just powers from the consent of the governed." Citizens in the newly independent states created by the Declaration of Independence and victory in our War for Independence, would be unlikely to consent to surrender their newly won political power.

Defenders of Democracy

James Wilson and James Madison were among the delegates who rose in defense of democracy and advocated for democracy. Wilson pointed out that: “No government could long subsist without the confidence of the people.” Madison “considered the popular election of one branch of the National Legislature as essential to every plan of free Government.” He made the point that, if that was not the case “the people would be lost sight of altogether; and the necessary sympathy between them and their rulers and officers, too little felt.”

But even Madison (who became a much stronger advocate for majority rule in the years after the convention) told his fellow delegates that “He was an advocate for the policy of refining the popular appointments by successive filtrations.” He did add that he thought those checks on the will of the people “might be pushed too far.”

In discussing giving the president the power to veto legislation, George Mason stated that “the probable abuses of a negative had been well established by Dr. Franklin as proved by experience, the best of all tests.” He asked of his fellow delegates “Do they flatter themselves that the people will ever consent to such an innovation? If they do, I venture to tell them, they are mistaken.”

And: “Notwithstanding the oppressions & injustice experienced among us from democracy; the genius of the people is in favor of it, and the genius of the people must be consulted.” “He could never agree to give up all the rights of the people to a single Magistrate.” Of course, the president was given the power to veto legislation and yet the Constitution was ratified (by a limited number of people who voted in state conventions as the Constitution was ratified).

Reluctant Compromises

With some prodding from the few pro-democracy delegates in attendance, the majority grudgingly acknowledged that the people must be given some voice in the government “in order to inspire them to the necessary confidence”. (And get them to ratify the Constitution that was being drafted.)

It may come as a shock to many Americans to learn that most of the men who drafted our Constitution were not fond of democracy. In light of the fact that the enemies of democracy greatly outnumbered Champions of Democracy among the delegates to the Federal Convention of 1787, it should come as no surprise that the body of our Constitution contains numerous anti-democratic provisions.

With the sole exception of altering the method of electing senators to make the process somewhat more democratic, the numerous anti-democratic provisions embedded in the body of our Constitution by the delegates to the Federal Convention remain in place. The primary reason those anti-democratic provisions remain in place is because the Constitution of the United States is the most difficult constitution in the world to amend.

Our Constitution has always been revered by most Americans and there is much to admire in our Constitution.

The Preamble is a clear and concise statement of the reasons our government was founded. It is also a powerful and inspiring summary of the proper role of government:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Bill of Rights that was added by Congress after our Constitution was ratified (at the insistence of several states as a condition of ratification) is arguably the best part of our Constitution and the part most worthy of the reverence most Americans have for our Constitution. It makes the role of government in securing our rights clear and sets proper limits of the powers of the government. The freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, freedom of speech and the press, freedom of religion, and the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government, are especially important.

Additional amendments have made our government more democratic by expanding the right to vote, providing for direct election of senators, and eliminating poll taxes.

On the other hand -

The form of government put in place by our Constitution conflicts with our ideals.

Eleven short years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence and just five years after the adoption of the Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress approved a resolution to send delegates to a convention that would propose revisions to the Articles of Confederation. The delegates to that convention decided, instead, to draft an entirely new document – the Constitution of the United States.

The false friends and true enemies of democracy greatly outnumbered Champions of Democracy at the Federal Convention of 1787. Numerous anti-democratic provisions were adopted and remain embedded in the body of the constitution they drafted. The form of government put in place in the body of the Constitution conflicts with the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence and does not fully include any of the essential elements of a true democracy.

If we want to make America a Perfect Democracy, we must take a critical look at our Constitution, identify the anti-democratic provisions within it, and amend our Constitution to remove those anti-democratic provisions.

Anti-Democratic Provisions in Our Constitution

The essential elements of a true democracy are majority rule, an equal vote and/or equal representation for all, and the supremacy of the legislative power. None of those elements are fully present in the form of our government, as established by our Constitution.

In the end, the document that was drafted – our Constitution – gave “the people” the right to elect one-half of one of the three branches of the newly empowered federal government (the House of Representatives) and then put two "checks" on the will of the people in place: requiring the concurrence of the Senate to any legislation enacted by the members of the House of Representatives and giving the president the power to veto legislation. The Supreme Court soon gave itself an additional check on the will of the people - the power to nullify acts of Congress through “judicial review” (a power not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution).

Super-majority requirements violate the principle of majority rule.

Super-majority requirements for overriding a presidential (or gubernatorial) veto, proposing an amendment to our Constitution, ratifying proposed amendments, or impeaching a president, allow a minority to overrule the majority.

Super-majority requirements violate the principles of majority rule and an equal vote for every member of a community, state, or nation. When a two-thirds super-majority is required, it takes two votes in favor of a proposal to offset every single vote against that proposal. In other words, the votes of citizens opposed to a particular proposal are worth twice as much as the votes of citizens in favor. The requirement that amendments to our Constitution be ratified by three-fourths of the states means that three states must ratify an amendment to offset each state that votes against ratification. That makes it possible for 13 states to block a constitutional amendment approved by 37 states. It is mathematically possible for states with less than 15% of the population of the U. S. to block amendments ratified by more than 85% of the population.

Super-majority requirements were generally intended to prevent the tyranny of the majority. In practice, they have contributed to an even more likely and dangerous problem – the tyranny of the minority.

Painful experience has shown that our rights can be violated by the government without amending the Constitution, enacting legislation, or properly obtaining the consent of the governed.

Checks and Balances = Gridlock by Design

"In American politics it is hard to get things done and easy to block them. With its multiple branches and hurdles, the institutional structure of American government allows organized and intense interests - even quite narrow ones - to create gridlock and stalemate." - Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson (from Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class).

Our vaunted system of “checks and balances” violates the principle of the supremacy of the legislative power. When a president or governor can veto legislation and a super-majority in both houses of a legislature is required to override a veto, the legislative branch must have an anti-democratic super-majority in support of the legislation vetoed to maintain supremacy. When Supreme Court Justices can nullify legislation by declaring it unconstitutional, within a system like ours where it is nearly impossible to amend a constitution, it gives five Justices more power than any less than a super-majority of the members of a legislative body. Here again, the legislative branch is not supreme, and a government is not a true democracy.

The Legislative Power is Not Supreme

The legislative branch is not supreme at either the state or federal level. Presidents have the power to veto bills passed by Congress and governors have the power to veto bills passed by state legislatures. The Supreme Court has granted itself the power to nullify acts of Congress by declaring them unconstitutional. Supreme Courts in the states have assumed similar powers. Far from being supreme within our political system, the legislative branch is the weakest branch of our governments at both the state and the federal levels.

Unequal Representation

The Preamble to our Constitution says that “We the people…ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”. [Emphasis added.] The body of our Constitution establishes a government where geographical areas are represented, not, people. States are represented in the Senate. Congressional districts are represented in the House of Representatives. As a result of significant variations in population among the 50 states and the 435 congressional districts that make up the United States, we the people do not have equal representation in either chamber of Congress.

In the U. S. Senate each state is represented by two senators. But the population of each state varies widely. Giving each state equal suffrage in the Senate makes the votes of citizens from the states with the smallest populations considerably more powerful than the votes of citizens from states with the largest populations. Wyoming, with a population of 576,851, is the least populous state. California has the largest population (39,538, 223). The vote of each voter in Wyoming is equal to 69 voters in California in the U. S. Senate.

In the U. S. House of Representatives each congressional district is represented by one representative.

States, not the People, Elect the President

There are several provisions in our Constitution related to the method of electing presidents that are antidemocratic. Our presidents are elected by states, through the Electoral College, not by the people of the United States. Electors are appointed “in such Manner as the Legislature (of each state) may direct”. Between 1800 and 1876, more and more states moved to a system of choosing their Electors by means of a popular vote, but the provision allowing them to appoint Electors in whatever manner they choose remains in the Constitution. Some states are considering legislation that would allow the state legislature to set aside the results of the popular vote and appoint their slate of Electors.

The fact that each state is given “a Number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled to in the Congress” means that the votes of the citizens of the smallest states are more powerful than the votes of the citizens of larger states.

And the votes of citizens who live in states where presidential elections are competitive are more impactful than the votes of citizens where presidential elections are not competitive.

The Electoral College system that is in place makes it possible for a candidate for president to get a plurality, or even a majority, of the popular vote and still lose in the Electoral College. That has now happened five times in our nation’s history – twice so far in the 21st century.

The fact that states, not the people of the United States, elect our presidents becomes even clearer if no candidate wins a majority of the electoral vote. When that happens, our Constitution provides for the House of Representatives to elect the president, with each state casting a single vote. That happened in 1824 and could happen again unless we amend the 12th Amendment before a viable third party or independent candidate wins enough electoral votes to send an election to the House of Representatives.

No Part of the Federal Government Reflects the Will of the People

The House of Representatives, with members elected directly by the people, was intended to represent the will of the people. The Senate and the president were intended to provide “checks” on the will of the people. The Supreme Court, with Justices nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, soon gave itself the power to provide an additional check on the will of the people by nullifying legislation deemed to be unconstitutional.

Flaws in the way we conduct elections and the dominant role of money in our political system have resulted in a House of Representatives that represents corporate interests and tax-averse billionaires rather than the people of America.

Combined with the fact that there are no provisions for referendums or the initiative in the Constitution, the result is a system where no part of our government reflects the will of the people.

The amendment process is thoroughly undemocratic.

The most impactful flaw in our political system is the fact that our Constitution is the most difficult constitution in the world to amend. The amendment process detailed in Article V is the most anti-democratic provision in our Constitution because it has made it difficult for us to remove any of the other anti-democratic provisions embedded in the body of our Constitution even when we recognize the need for reforms.

Our Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad ELECTIONS

Our elections are a national disgrace, consisting primarily of endless fundraising campaigns to support the care and feeding of political consultants, packaging and marketing candidates like products, with expensive advertising campaigns that consist of primarily of glittering generalities, and empty promises, on one hand; and attack ads from opponents that demonize and vilify candidates with claims that often border on slander and libel, and sometimes cross the line, on the other hand.

The general atmosphere within the context of politics as usual in America today is toxic - filled with angry, hateful exchanges of views and opinions related to the wedge issues that divide us – a great deal of sound and fury, that reach a crescendo as election days approach. The entire system is primarily designed to maximize the amount of money that flows into our thoroughly corrupted, broken, and dysfunctional electoral system.

If our elections resulted in the election of honorable and trustworthy public servants and ideal representative assemblies that effectively addressed the problems we face as a nation and resolved the issues that divide us, the ugliness and bitterness of our elections might be tolerable. But that is not the case. Legislation that “promote(s) the general Welfare” or helps to “secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity” rarely makes it past the many "checks" in our unbalanced, corrupt, gridlocked, and deeply flawed political system.

What follows is an overview of the many problems with the way we conduct elections.

Why we have a duopoly (a two- party system)

Duverger’s Law

In the 1950s, French sociologist and political scientist Maurice Duverger conducted an extensive study of political systems around the world and observed a strong correlation between the electoral systems of various countries and the number of viable political parties in a country. He found that countries with “winner-take-all” elections, plurality winners and single-member districts for legislative bodies tended to have two dominant political parties (a "duopoly"). Countries with some form of proportional representation (such as ranked choice voting combined with at-large elections or multiple-member districts) nearly always had more than two viable political parties. This observation has come to be known as "Duverger's Law".

While there have been a few exceptions to the pattern Duverger noted, unfortunately the United States has not been one of the exceptions.

Most of the flaws within our electoral system are related to the fact that we have a two-party system with plurality winners and single-member districts.

Maurice Duverger (1917-2014)

How winner-take-all elections lead to a two-party system

This video (from CGP Grey) explains several of the major problems resulting from "winner-take -all" elections (also known as "first-past-the-post" elections). The main problem is that this type of system nearly always results in a duopoly (a two-party system) with plurality winners.

This video also explains gerrymandering and the "spoiler effect" - which is why supporting minor party candidates is problematic without Ranked Choice Voting with multiple-member districts or at-large elections.

Flaws in Our Elections Related to Having a Duopoly

Gerrymandering

What’s worse than a choice between the “lesser-of-two-evils”? Having no choice at all.

Gerrymandering is the practice of drawing congressional district lines (or legislative district lines) in such a way as to give one of the two major political parties an unfair advantage – making most congressional (or legislative) districts “safe” for one party or the other.

Both of the major political parties in the United States engage in gerrymandering. Some members of the Democratic Party seem interested in eliminating gerrymandering. Most members of the Republican Party seem intent on perfecting the art of gerrymandering.

The two basic methods applied as part of gerrymandering are “cracking” and “packing”. Cracking is the practice of breaking up a bloc of voters who are likely to vote for the opposition party, dividing them among several other districts in a manner that dilutes their voting strength. Packing is the opposite of cracking. Voters who are likely to support the opposition party are packed into a single district making the surrounding districts safe for the party in power.

These methods are used in whatever combination is most likely to maximize the number of seats for the party in control of a state’s government and minimize the number of seats won by the opposition party. The end result is that there are very few districts left that are competitive. In other words, there are very few elections where the candidates both major parties have a realistic chance of winning, leaving voters in most districts with no real choice at all, other than the primary elections of the party in control of a district.

Every two years elections are conducted for all 435 seats in the U. S. House of Representatives, in most election years there are fewer than 30 districts total throughout the entire United States that are contested closely enough that individual voters can realistically make a difference by voting. In more than 90 percent of the country, voters who feel that their vote does not really matter are correct.

Gerrymandering is simple to accomplish within a two-party system, especially when the process of redrawing district lines can be effectively controlled by the party in control of the government in each state. Ranked choice voting would make gerrymandering nearly impossible in any state or district where minor parties would have a realistic chance of winning some seats. Implementing systems of Personal Representation would not only make gerrymandering irrelevant, it would also make it counter-productive. It would lead to more citizens realizing and taking full advantage of the power and the benefits of being able to select the member of each legislative body who will represent them and cast votes on their behalf.

Plurality Winners

Even though minor party and independent candidates seldom have a realistic chance of winning, some voters cast votes for them either as a matter of principle or to simply register their frustration with the lack of choices they are offered within the present system. In the handful of congressional or legislative districts that have not been rendered “safe” for one or the other of the two major parties, the fact that five or ten percent of the voters cast their voters for minor party or independent candidates often results in the winning candidate receiving less than a majority of the votes cast. This violates the most basic element of democracy – majority rule.

With a winner-take-all system, when voters have more than two viable candidates to choose from, it increases the chances that the winning candidate will receive less than a majority of the votes cast. As the number of viable candidates increases, the percentage of the votes needed to win decreases. When voters have three viable candidates from which to choose and the vote is split somewhat evenly, the winning candidate may have as little as 34 percent of the total vote. With four viable candidates, the winning candidate may have as little as 26 percent of the total vote. With five viable candidates, the winning candidate may have as little as 21 percent of the total vote.

This can be a major problem when several candidates who share the views and opinions of a majority of the voters split those votes allowing a candidate with views and opinions that are shared by a majority of the voters. In the Democratic primary for the 4th Congressional District in Massachusetts in 2020, there were nine candidates, most of them progressives, and the only conservative Democrat among them, won with 22 percent of the total vote.

Wasted Votes

When voters could vote for a minor party or independent candidate who would truly be their first choice if they had a realistic chance of winning, the fact that they are viewed as not having a realistic chance of winning keeps most voters from voting for them because they don’t want to cast a “wasted vote”.

"The Spoiler Effect"

The added danger with casting what is likely to be a wasted vote is the “spoiler effect”. Especially in an election that is closely contested by the candidates of the two major parties, a voter who might otherwise vote for a minor party or independent candidate may hesitate to do so because they don’t want to spoil the chances of the major party candidate they view as “the lesser-of-two-evils” by casting a “wasted vote” for a minor party or independent candidate with no chance of winning. As a result of the fear of casting wasted votes and the spoiler effect, the belief that an otherwise excellent minor party or independent candidate has no chance of winning becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Negative Campaigning ("Attack Ads")

A significant percentage of the money raised to support political campaigns is spent on advertising. And a significant percentage of that advertising qualifies as “attack ads” that demean the primary (major party) opponent of the candidate paying for the ad, or a “Super PAC” that is supporting a candidate. Attacks ads routinely exhibit little regard for the truth, often bordering on, or even crossing the line into, libel and slander. If Crest and Colgate used similar methods to market toothpaste, most people would be afraid to brush their teeth. The end result is to convince most voters that all politicians are venal and to convince any candidate who would rather not be subjected to nasty, vicious attacks on their character and integrity, not to run for office.

Flaws Related to the Dominant Role of Money in Our Elections

“Unlimited political bribery” is certainly a serious problem within our electoral system, and it is a problem that has been made much worse by the dramatic escalation in the cost of running for office, especially at the federal level. The problem goes well beyond corrupting presidents and members of Congress.

Lack of money is a barrier to otherwise qualified candidates.

The need to raise enormous amounts of money in order to have a realistic chance of winning an election is a significant barrier to entry for potential candidates. Getting your message out and building the name recognition needed to win an election is expensive. Some candidates for office at the state and local level may be able to get by without hiring a campaign manager or other paid staff, but it is virtually impossible to conduct a winning campaign for federal office without paid staff. The numerous advantages that accrue to incumbents running for reelection makes it difficult for candidates who wish to challenge incumbents to raise money.

Media makes the dominance of money even worse.

Our vaunted “free press” covers most elections in the same way they cover sporting events, focusing primarily on reporting on which candidates have raised the most money and who is ahead in the polls. Pundits prove their bona fides by accurately predicting the winners (a relatively simple matter in most cases since few races are competitive). Candidates with fresh or novel ideas, but little money or name recognition, garner little attention from the media, especially if they are running as a minor party or independent candidate. (In which case, they are routinely excluded from debates.)

The mainstream, corporate-owned media has a vested interest in ignoring candidates with ideas that threaten corporate dominance of our government. For candidates with good ideas but little money or name recognition, the lack of media attention is typically fatal.

The Corrupting Effects of the Need to Raise Money Constantly

The need to continually raise money interferes with the ability of legislators to do the job they were elected to do. Especially at the national level, senators and representatives spend a lot of time "dialing for dollars" to raise money. Evenings and weekends for elected officials are regularly filled with fundraising events. And the people who write the biggest checks have far greater access to our elected officials than their constituents or average voters.

Most citizens realize that money has corrupted our political system and that both major parties have been corrupted but are less aware of the differences in the nature and extent of corporate influence within the Democratic and Republican parties. In their book Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer – And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class, Jacob S. Hacker & Paul Pierson explained the differences:

"Business interests “gave much more heavily to the Republican Party organization, helping the GOP to outperform Democrats in closely contested elections. Money to Democrats plays a different, if no less critical, role. It was a form of insurance. Revealingly, the money went largely to individuals rather than to the party as an organization. It was destined for the powerful and “moderates,” with the goal of minimizing any prospect of distasteful legislation. Carefully targeted contributions could effectively exploit the multiple channels American political institutions make available for blocking, dilution, or delay. Even grudging or quiet support from a handful of Democrats – particularly well-placed ones – could make a huge difference. Such allies could help keep issues off the agenda, substitute symbolic initiatives for real ones, add critical loopholes, or insist on otherwise unnecessary compromises with the GOP. Willing Democrats could also provide valuable bipartisan cover for business-friendly Republican initiatives. Here, as in so many ways, Democrats and Republicans could play distinct but complimentary roles in supporting business interests.”

No Serious Discussion of Issues of Concern

Advertising is the focal point of campaigns for Congress and the presidency and there is virtually no useful information included in any of that advertising. Debates are rare, and with the exception of presidential debates, not viewed by many voters. The format used in most presidential debates limits candidates to fairly brief statements. (Which lends itself nicely to consultants prepping candidates with pre-packaged responses but rarely leads to a meaningful discussion of any issues.) Moderators phrase questions in ways that are designed to provoke heated exchanges between candidates, even among candidates from the same party in the case of primary debates. There is a simple reason for this. Conflict and angry exchanges draw viewers. Viewers drive ratings. And ratings drive profits.

All our major media organizations are now owned and operated by corporations. And over the past few decades, corporations have come to focus on maximizing profits and protecting the corporate agenda. The fact that corporate interests are strongly opposed to nearly everything that voters want provides a strong incentive for corporate-owned media to avoid meaningful discussions of issues that would enlighten voters and awaken them to the fact that, while we remain bitterly divided on the “wedge issues” (abortion, gun control, gay rights, and immigration), there is a great deal of agreement on most of the main issues that should concern us (a federal job guarantee, a public option for health care, an effective response to the threats posed by global warming, et cetera). A focus on the issues that matter most to voters might also lead to candidates who put people ahead of profits winning more elections.

The material on this website is adapted from a soon to be published book: Government by the People: Perfecting Demt ocracy in the 21st Century by Winston Apple.

Permission is granted to share with proper attribution. All Rights are Reserved.

This website is paid for by Winston Apple - as a private citizen.

Government by the People