While I agree with Danielle Allen’s argument for what she calls “democracy renovation” in the Washington Post, I think she’s operating under some false premises. So, for example, I agree that constitutional democracy is a good system:
Human beings thrive when they can steer their own lives — both in their private lives and by acting together in the public sphere. Constitutional democracy is the only form of government that makes this possible for all. It’s not perfect by any means, but it’s the best that’s humanly imaginable.
and I agree that our democracy needs “renovation”:
The constitutional democracy set up in the 18th century started from the idea that power could be reserved to some (mainly White, male holders of property, with some exceptions) while nonetheless being deployed for the good of all. This proposition is false. The only way to ensure that a political system serves the good of all is to ensure that power is shared by all. We’re still learning how to build a political system that genuinely supports fully inclusive power-sharing.
even if I’m not entirely in agreement with her assessment of the direction of reform:
Some of these I’ve written about already; some will be explored in columns to come. Employing unified all-comers preliminaries in place of party primaries, and having those preliminaries move four or five finalists forward to a final round where there is an instant runoff using ranked-choice voting; increasing the size of the House of Representatives; eradicating news deserts; ensuring full voter access; and embedding citizen deliberation in our representative system.
but, basically, I think I disagree with some of her assumptions. For example, why does she assume that “all-comers preliminaries” followed by instant runoffs using ranked-choice voting will render the system more democratic? The exact opposite seems to have transpired where it has been tried, e.g. California. What actually seems to have happened is that it has strengthened the position of the most extreme minorities.
Why does she ignore the role of party politics in her exposition? It receives short shrift. She treats the determination of who is allowed to vote as a given. I would only point out that expanding the franchise has not resulted in greater participation. Quite the opposite. At the very least we should consider raising the legal voting age to 25. Proposals that are being bruited about do the opposite. I find her assumptions about our legal system troubling. And, finally, why not direct democracy? To my eye, every argument against direct democracy, primarily that relatively few have the time or inclination to devote enough attention to governing pertains equally to representative democracy at the federal level, at least as it operates at present. Our elected representatives don’t spend most of their time performing constituent service, legislating, engaging in oversight, etc. They spend most of their time raising money for re-election.
However, rather than bickering about the pros and cons of direct democracy, I would prefer that we turn our attention to renovating our political parties. Our parties are ossified and authoritarian. As presently constructed your preferences or even those of your elected representative make little difference. I would suggest the following reforms:
- Term limits
- Failing term limits party leadership should be determined by lot. Determination based on seniority should be prohibited by constitutional amendment if necessary
- The authority of House Speaker and Senate majority leader should be strictly curtailed. Any member should have the authority to propose legislation which must be brought to the floor, propose amendments, etc. That’s the way it was until relatively recently.
I’m open to other reforms but I believe those are long overdue.
I should mention that although I agree with her proposal to increase the size of the House no foreseeable enlargement would be sufficient. We might also consider increasing the number of states by requiring states to be divvied up once they reach a certain population. Or abolishing the Senate entirely. With the popular election of the Senate a century ago it serves little useful purpose.
