Our Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad ELECTIONS

In addition to removing the anti-democratic provisions that are embedded in our Constitution, we must also address problems related to the way we conduct our 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 obstacles to democratic in our corrupted, gridlocked, broken, and dysfunctional political system.

What follows is a brief discussion of the problems with the way we conduct elections.

Duverger’s Law – Why we have a two-party system (a duopoly).

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 systems with “winner-take-all” elections, with plurality winners, combined with single-member districts for legislative bodies, tended to have two dominant political parties (a "duopoly"). On the other hand, countries with some form of proportional representation nearly always had more than two viable political parties.

This observation has come to be known as "Duverger's Law". And while there are occasional exceptions to the pattern Duverger noted, unfortunately the United States is not one of the exceptions.

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

Maurice Duverger

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

This video (one of many excellent civics education videos 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.

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. The Democratic Party is actively trying to eliminate gerrymandering. The Republican Party seems intent on perfecting the art of gerrymandering to give it as much of an advantage as possible.

Gerrymandering is nearly impossible within a system where multiple parties have a realistic chance of winning but 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.

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.

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.

“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.

The lack of enormous amounts 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, spending an inordinate amount of time 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 hours and hours most days sitting in cubicles in buildings blocks away from the Capitol making phone call after phone call to raise money. Evenings and weekends for elected officials are filled with fundraising events. And the people who write the biggest checks have far greater access to our elected officials than the average voter.

The growth of political activity on the Internet has led to more money for political campaigns coming in small dollar amounts from a large number of contributors. These small contributions generally flow to candidates as a show of support for what they have already said and done and cannot be accurately classified as a form of bribery. The “unlimited political bribery” that President Carter lamented comes from corporate interests and tax-averse billionaires and comes with strings attached.

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 explain 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.”

This strategy has paid off handsomely for corporate interests.

The corporate agenda is actively promoted when Republicans are in control of Congress or a state legislature and despite the fact that the Democratic Party Credo and platforms are filled with calls for legislation favored by solid majorities of voters, the combined efforts of corporate-friendly Republicans and corporate Democrats, operating quietly behind the scenes, is nearly always successful in keeping legislation opposed by corporate interests from passing, or even being brought to the floor for debate and a vote.

The Biggest Problem of All with Our Elections

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 primary issue that needs to be discussed extensively this year is how to -

This year's election will be a referendum on DEMOCRACY

We need to make sure democracy wins!

The events of the past few years have ensured that this year's election is going to be a referendum on democracy. And this referendum is going to be much broader than just a matter of voting for President Biden or former President Trump. The presidential election may draw most of the attention, but the big question to be resolved is whether we will elect Champions of Democracy to a majority of the seats in Congress and in state legislatures.

As was the case at the Federal Convention of 1787, Champions of Democracy today are seriously outnumbered by the false friends and true enemies of democracy in Congress and in state legislatures. Pro-democracy reforms are not going to be enacted until Champions of Democracy are in the majority in Congress and state legislatures. Where super-majorities are required (to amend the U. S. Constitution and some state constitutions), Champions of Democracy will need to win a super-majority of the seats to be able to even propose amendments needed to make America a true democracy. And pro-democracy amendments will need the support of a simple majority of voters in a super-majority of states to be ratified.

In a referendum on democracy, for democracy to win, we need a plurality of the voters in a super-majority of the states, congressional districts, and legislative districts to vote for Champions of Democracy.

Which Side Are You On?

Democracy is a team sport and a numbers game, but the “sides” in a referendum on democracy are not Democrats versus Republicans. There are some Democrats who believe in and support democracy, there are some who do not. There are some Republicans who believe in and support democracy, there are some who do not. There are some members of minor parties and independent voters who believe in and support democracy, there are some who do not.

The sides in a referendum on democracy are Champions of Democracy versus the false friends and true enemies of democracy. Champions of Democracy believe in and support democracy. The false friends and true enemies of democracy do not. To make America a perfect democracy, we need to elect Champions of Democracy to a majority of the seats in both chambers in at least three-fourths of the states, or to a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress.

If you believe that we are all endowed by Our Creator with equal and unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - you are a Champion of Democracy.

If you believe one of the primary reasons we institute governments among us is to secure and protect our rights - you are a Champion of Democracy.

If you believe that we, the people of America, should decide what rights will be secured and protected by our government (not Supreme Court justices or corrupted politicians) - you are a Champion of Democracy.

If you believe that governments derive their "just powers from the consent of the governed" - you are a Champion of Democracy.

If you believe in majority rule - you are a Champion of Democracy.

If you believe that "the consent of the governed" is only properly obtained when everyone who is governed by the acts of a government has an equal vote and equal representation as major political decisions are made - you are a Champion of Democracy.

If you support the legislation included in the Democracy Agenda - you are a Champion of Democracy.

If you believe it is our Right and our Duty to alter the form of our government, when necessary, to provide for our Safety and Happiness - you are a Champion of Democracy.

The material on this website is adapted from a soon to be published book: Government by the People: A Citizen's Guide to Making America a Perfect Democracy by Winston Apple.

This website was created by, is maintained by, and paid for by Winston Apple,

Government by the People

Government by the People

Our Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad ELECTIONS

Duverger’s Law – Why we have a two-party system (a duopoly).

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

Flaws in Our Elections Related to Having a Duopoly

Gerrymandering

Plurality Winners

Wasted Votes

"The Spoiler Effect"

Negative Campaigning ("Attack Ads")

Flaws Related to the Dominant Role of Money in Our Elections

The lack of enormous amounts of money is a barrier to otherwise qualified candidates.

Media makes the dominance of money even worse

The Corrupting Effects of the Need to Raise Money Constantly

This strategy has paid off handsomely for corporate interests.

The Biggest Problem of All with Our Elections

No Serious Discussion of Issues of Concern

This year's election will be a referendum on DEMOCRACY

We need to make sure democracy wins!

Which Side Are You On?

If you are a Champion of Democracy - take action!

Government by the People

Government by the People

Our Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad ELECTIONS

Duverger’s Law – Why we have a two-party system (a duopoly).

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

Flaws in Our Elections Related to Having a Duopoly

Gerrymandering

Plurality Winners

Wasted Votes

"The Spoiler Effect"

Negative Campaigning ("Attack Ads")

Flaws Related to the Dominant Role of Money in Our Elections

The lack of enormous amounts of money is a barrier to otherwise qualified candidates.

Media makes the dominance of money even worse

The Corrupting Effects of the Need to Raise Money Constantly

This strategy has paid off handsomely for corporate interests.

The Biggest Problem of All with Our Elections

No Serious Discussion of Issues of Concern

This year's election will be a referendum on DEMOCRACY

We need to make sure democracy wins!

Which Side Are You On?

If you are a Champion of Democracy - take action!

Sign Up for Updates

Join our Facebook Group. Follow us on X (Twitter).