What is Wrong?

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 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.

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.

Our Constitution Conflicts with Our Ideals

There is much to admire in our Constitution

The Preamble is a clear statement of the reasons we founded our government. It is a concise 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 was the first statements of rights ever incorporated in a nation’s constitution and sets proper limits of the powers of the government.

Most of the additional amendments have made America more democratic, 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 in the body of the Constitution contains many anti-democratic provisions that conflict 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.

To fully understand what is wrong with our political system, we must look back to the Federal Convention of 1787, where our Constitution was drafted.

The Federal Convention of 1787

Most of the Delegates to the Convention were not fond of democracy

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, 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 others 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.

In their own words: Quotes from the Framers of Our Constitution

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.

Here is a sample of what some of the delegates had to say:

One of the most outspoken critics of democracy was Elbridge Gerry, who 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. At the convention, Gerry stated that: “The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy.” [Many of the “evils” that plague and corrupt our electoral system today flow from gerrymandering.]

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."

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.”

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.”

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."

Anti-Democratic Provisions in Our Constitution

The essential elements of a true democracy are majority rule, an equal vote 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). The essential elements of a true democracy are majority rule, an equal vote 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.

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.

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).

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

Given the many problems with our elections, even the House of Representatives, with members elected directly by the people, rarely represents the will of the people. Combined with the fact that we have no provision for conducting national referendums, there is no part of our government designed to reflect the will of the people, which is largely rendered irrelevant by our system of government.

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. There is less variation than in the Senate, but still significant variations, between the populations of congressional districts.

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.

A Government Founded on Fear

In his Thoughts on Government, John Adams observed that:

“Fear is the foundation of most governments; but is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men,

in whose breasts it predominates, so stupid, and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.”

And yet, the Framers of our Constitution, at least some of whom had clearly read and been influenced by Adams’ Thoughts on Government, drafted a document infused with fear. Fear of the tyranny of a monarch on one hand and fear of democracy (the tyranny of the majority and "mob rule") on the other. And still, a majority of the Americans who cast votes during the ratification process approved that Constitution.

Adams may have been wrong in predicting that Americans would reject a government founded on fear. He has, however, been proven right in another regard – fear has, indeed, proven to be “so sordid and brutal a passion” that a great many Americans from his time down to ours have been rendered “stupid” and/or “miserable” as a result of our government being founded on fear. And that stupidity and misery, as well as sordid and brutal passions are evident in the way we conduct elections in America.

Our Constitution has long been revered by most Americans, very few of whom have ever actually read it. Even fewer among us have taken the time to make a critical comparison of the form of government put in place by our Constitution and the democratic ideals expressed so clearly and powerfully in the Declaration of Independence.

The form of the government put in place by our Constitution conflicts with our ideals. If we want to make America a perfect democracy, we need to amend our Constitution to resolve that conflict in favor of our ideals. If we truly believe that the "just powers" of governments are derived from the "consent of the governed", we need to enact reforms that make the House of Representatives and “exact portrait” (in miniature) of “the people” of America and then remove the "checks" on the will of the people that were put in place by the men who drafted our Constitution.

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.

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

This website is paid for by Perfect Democracy - a 501(c)4 political action committee.

Government by the People