Perspective 121. Democracy in America: On the Decline?
In our current hyper-partisan environment, there is no lack of alarmist rhetoric – including the claim that democracy in the United States is losing ground. Is there evidence for this?
Yes. In perspective, research institutes with the best claim to measuring democracy scientifically have recorded lower scores for American democracy in recent surveys. Freedom House in 2010 gave the United States a score of 94 on a scale of 0- 100 on political rights and civil liberties, but only 83 of 100 ten years later, in 2020.
The Economist Intelligence Unit, with a sophisticated index of democracy incorporating over 60 variables, has for several years rated the United States as a “flawed democracy” since it falls below 8 on the 10-point index that the EIU employs. Admittedly this distinction between full democracies and flawed democracies, set arbitrarily at a score of 8, has limited reality. Nevertheless the United States is ranked only 30th in the world on democracy in 2023, a drop of 4 places from the previous year.
So what are the weaknesses that put the United States below dozens of our fellow democracies in objective measures of actual democratic practice? Freedom House singles out the unequal access of certain groups, the influence of money, and the surge of partisan polarization and extremism.
Efforts to limit access, particularly on a racial basis, are expressed in laws to suppress voting and in totally shameless gerrymandering. Supreme Court decisions have declared that money is free speech and removed limits on corporate funding of campaigns – giving a gigantic edge to those with the money. Partisan extremists, for their part, have moved to intimidate election officials, educators, librarians, and judges.
What are the remedies? What can be done to restore lost democracy? Some problems have an obvious answer. States can set up independent commissions to draw maps that are fair to everyone. This is hard when the existing legislature was chosen by the existing distorted lines, but in states where a referendum is possible (as in Michigan) the legislature can be bypassed.
The idea that money is free speech will have to be reversed in the courts sooner or later. It is ludicrous to pretend that the speaker on the street corner is the functional equivalent of the multi-billionaire who can buy entire networks or social media platforms. There was a time when conservatives like John McCain recognized that limiting the power of money was simple sanity. May those days return.
Another step would be to restore democracy in the U.S. Senate. The inability to stop debate – the filibuster – has been a blot on our government since its accidental creation in the nineteenth century (as explained in Perspective 1, the very first blab in this blog). The Founding Fathers, far from giving minorities power to block action, actually favored rule by the majority (i. e., democracy). The filibuster was NOT their invention.
There is also a proposal to limit Supreme Court Justices to 18-year, rather than lifetime, terms, giving each President the power to appoint two Justices. This would, however, require a constitutional amendment, meaning that there is no realistic chance of it happening prior to the arrival of the messiah.
There is, however, another original anti-democratic eccentricity in our federal system that could be tossed out without a constitutional amendment. This is our weird presidential electoral college, designed for a world that had passed away before the scheme was even implemented. With the electoral college, the United States has five times rejected the candidate with the most votes, most recently in 2016 – and it remains a distinct possibility in 2024. This is a malignancy than should be, and can be, excised.
The constitution gives state legislatures control over how presidential electors are chosen (and the Trumpists tried to Illegally overturn the 2020 election by exploiting precisely this provision). But turning matters around, state legislatures could simply award the state’s electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most votes nationally. No constitutional change needed; the creaky antiquated machinery of the original constitution would simply be exploited in a democratic rather than anti-democratic mode.
And as it happens 16 states and the District of Columbia have already signed on to a pledge to do exactly that, under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The Compact will come into effect when the pledged votes constitute a majority of 270 – at which point what other states choose to do will become irrelevant. The pledged votes now total 205, only 65 short of the target.
And bills to join the compact have passed in one chamber of the state legislature in eight other states with 78 electoral votes. Maybe democracy is, despite the despair, finally on the upswing?