Perspective 61: Flaws in U.S. Democracy: Something New?

As previously noted in these ramblings, the most comprehensive expert survey recently ranked the United States as only 31st in the world in the quality of its democracy -- and declining. Does this mark a sharp reversal for a nation that has long regarded itself as a beacon of liberal governance?

No. In opposition to its self-image, the United States historically has never been the leading exemplar of democracy for other nations. Only 17 percent in one recent international survey regard U.S. democracy as worthy of emulation.

In perspective, the Founding Fathers would have been astounded by the later presumption of their nation to be the champion of democracy. They generally regarded democracy as dangerously close to mob rule, and designed institutions to avoid its excesses. The word "democracy" appears neither in the Declaration of Independence nor in the U.S. Constitution.

Among these non-democratic institutions was the presidential electoral college, which leaves the method of choosing electors to state legislatures. Even after states turned the choice over to voters, the result does not necessarily reflect a popular majority because of its fragmentation and the heavier weight given to smaller states.

On six occasions, and twice in the last six elections, this has produced a winner with fewer votes than his or her opponent (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, 2016). If democracy means, basically, majority rule, then the democratic choice for the top office of the land is a matter of happenstance.

Furthermore, there is no guarantee that states will, in the future, honor the tradition of awarding their electoral votes to the top vote-getter. In the aftermath of our last election, some 36 state laws empowering state legislatures to monitor or overturn election results have been passed. Would such actions pass judicial scrutiny? Four of the current Supreme Court Justices have already indicated support for this "independent state legislature" doctrine.

Is there also historical precedent for this power grab? Yes, in fact, the election of 1876 (subject of my M.A. thesis long ago) was strikingly similar in some ways. Republican-dominated electoral commissions in three southern states threw out enough Democratic votes to elect a minority president, and their actions were upheld by Supreme Court justices voting along party lines.

Then there is the filibuster in the U.S. Senate. Even the Founding Fathers didn't go this far: James Madison wrote that requiring a super-majority for legislative action violated a fundamental principle of government and transferred power to the minority (this was the subject of the first-ever blog in this seriies). But Mitch McConnell is correct in one respect: it has been with us from very early days and is one of our hallowed (non-democratic) traditions.

There are numerous other dimensions to the flaws in American democracy: low voter turnout, the role of money in elections and in lobbying, unequal access of large segments of the public, the miserable quality of public debate. None of these are new, though they may be on the rise.

And we also now have an estimated 21 million of our fellow countrymen, according to a reputable survey, ready to use violence to overturn the last election.

In noting our democratic failures historically, let's remember that this nation fought one of the bloodiest civil wars of the nineteenth century. This is an experience we should not be eager to repeat.