My quest to find someone bold enough to provide his or her definition of democracy led me to this op-ed by Jedediah Britton-Purdy in the New York Times. In it Mr. Britton-Purdy, horrified at the state of American democracy, suggests some reforms:
Jan. 6 and the four years before it were a forcible reminder that democracy is a task, not a birthright. Having rediscovered that we must take democracy seriously, we should now put it first in our politics.
Majorities of the people, not the Electoral College, should be able to pick the president and decide who controls the House and Senate. Everyone making their lives in the United States — including the incarcerated, people convicted of felonies and noncitizens — should be allowed to vote.
This might sound alarming to inland Republican voters who imagine themselves besieged by a permanent coastal majority. But in a working democracy, there are no permanent majorities or minorities. Forging partnerships in a truly democratic system, inland conservatives would soon find new allies — just not ones determined to break democracy itself.
Some of these changes probably require amending the Constitution. Hard changes have come through constitutional amendment before: Shortly before World War I, activists successfully pressed state legislatures to ratify an amendment giving up their power to choose U.S. senators. Maybe we can revive mass movements for amendments, starting with one that would make the amendment process itself more democratic. If the public supports a constitutional amendment to limit money in politics, restrict gerrymandering or enshrine a core abortion right, a committed majority should be able to say what our fundamental law is by popular vote, rather than having to go through the current, complicated process of ratifying amendments through state legislatures or dozens of constitutional conventions.
What surprised me was that he failed to ask the next, rather obvious question. In a “true democracy” (his phrase, not mine) what would be the use of a House or Senate? How can any system be a representative democracy without representing the views of the people? It’s a contradiction in terms.
What is also rather obvious is that political parties are undemocratic. Consider that in every state the redistricting process has resulted in conferring an advantage to whichever political party controlled the process. The again rather obvious conclusion from that is that seizing such advantages is not a Republican thing. It is a human thing. National at-large elections for representatives in which the districting process is controlled nationally would inevitably result in a permanent advantage conferred to whichever part happened to hold a majority at the time. In other words, to return to Mr. Britton-Purdy’s terminology, we can have a “working democracy” or we can have a representative democracy with political parties but we cannot have both. Again, it’s a contradiction in terms.
Britton-Purdy is not clear at all about what he is aiming for. A lot of Constitutional Law Professors are really poor at system analysis, and tend to do what B-P does here and selective quote famous people to support an argument, like he was arguing to a Court, not the People. Political scientists understand systems better, but usually are dependent on comparative analysis of existing political systems. Is B-P arguing for a political system that has ever existed?
Underneath it all, I think he is addressing the Manchin problem, not concern for Republicans captured by the insurgency. Any multiparty system would still keep the Manchin problem, it might make it worst as a traditional labor style party would probably be larger than Manchin’s single vote. Multiparty systems (by which I mean more than two parties) are not necessarily more majoritarian — they tend to require transactional coalitions entered into at the most elite levels, not by the People.
But again I may not understand whatever politics-by-popular-referendum system he may want to put in place. I would just point out that the Constitution was enacted by people not favorable to political parties, but they were ultimately deemed a necessity.
He appears to want representative democracy with national at-large elections. It’s unclear to me that would be democratic at all.
The question got me looking at The Federalist Papers again. Now the drafters of the constitution are not demi-gods, and their thinking can be criticized as any other. But their handiwork (this country) says they do know something.
Here is how the paper defined Democracy:
“From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union…”
I’m confused because he argues that majorities should be able to restrict gerrymandering, which implies districts. Geographic districts are a primary source of separation between votes cast and national outcomes. At-large elections avoid this problem, but will ultimately require parties and slates to organize slates capable of capturing a majority.
At large elections could eliminate two party systems, but smaller parties are less likely to capture a majority and the resulting coalitions will be formed by elites. The parties could, as they have in many European countries, organize around race, religion or regions in a way that are probably not good for the U.S. Also, the difficulty in running so many elections at the national level probably favors the rich and famous.
“In a “true democracy†(his phrase, not mine) what would be the use of a House or Senate?”
Well, of course. Jed seems more like a poor mountaineer barely keeps his family fed.
I’m not at all unclear at what he’s aiming at. He’s got Doc Taylor’s fever. He wants his views to prevail – and the implications be damned – and so he begins proposing the overthrow of a system that has served, if sometimes in less than stellar fashion, quite well.
CO clearly makes the right citation. Heh. You’d almost think these guys had thought this through………. The usual banal observations about changing times etc fall flat in the face of such learned wisdom and empirical evidence.
He is strongly, almost rabidly anti-Madisonian. Federalist 10 which, I believe, is what you’ve quoted above was written by Madison.
IMO, our political parties are too democratic. We’re the only democracy in the world where political parties have zero control over candidate selection and zero control over who can join or be part of the party. This “too much democracy” – primarily the primary system – is one of the major root cancers in our political system currently.
In the Congress and Senate, the vast majority of politicians are in safe seats. The parties have no power over them so they are, for the most part, atomized or -at best- part of coalitions that arguably have more coherence than the parties themselves. Unlike many European systems, our parties cannot force politicians to vote a certain way or kick someone out of the party. There is zero party discipline – there is only naked self-interest. The “Manchin problem” is that the Democratic party has no power over him other than saying mean things on Twitter. That’s what a weak party results in.
Secondly, safe seats mean the general electorate will consistently pick whoever has a (D) or (R) next to their name in the House and Senate. The only real political threat or competition these politicians have is primaries. So it’s no wonder they pander to the “democracy” of the median primary voter, who is unrepresentative of the median American.
So right now, we have all of the worst features of political parties and factionalism, and none of the benefits.
I see it more as a façade of democracy; the party leadership has enormous, unchecked power. Consider the power of the Speaker of the House. The Speaker has total control over what comes to the floor. Total. At present no amendments are allowed from the floor (in either house). It’s take it or leave it. And House Speakers are hardly chosen democratically.
And then there’s seniority. Committee chairmen have tremendous unchecked power as well and in general committee chairmen are the most senior members. How democratic is that?
Not quite. Letting Bernie Sanders run for the presidency in the Democratic primaries was a choice on the part of the leadership. He could easily have been disqualified with no appeal possible.
Yes, the leaders have tremendous positional authority. That is a different problem from having weak parties. Note that Pelosi is the leader of the House, not the leader of the Democratic party. She cannot use her position to force Democrats to play nice with each other to achieve party goals. At most she’s herding cats.
The ability to control the agenda is mainly used to prevent Democrats from making politically risky or unpopular votes. That’s why a lot of House Democrats are upset about voting for a BBB bill that will never pass in the Senate. That’s about the only tool left that the leadership has to protect incumbents.
I agree w/ Andy about the weakness of the political parties, though I think the professor would argue that this is only relevant to the extent that a strong separation of powers system necessitates strong parties to accomplish anything.
The Manchin problem in a European setting probably does not play out all that differently. The ability of those parties to discipline members isn’t really based upon kicking them out of the party, but doing so in conjunction with calling an election in which the independent would be defeated. It does not work in situations in which the candidate is more popular than the party.
Also in a European system, Manchin would probably not be in the same party as most of the Democrats in any event. He would probably be in a labor party, Pelosi/Schumer would probably be in a social democratic party, and AOC/Sanders would be in a Leftist party. Majority governments are less common than coalition compromises.