Lately, I’ve been hearing a lot about democracy in America, and it makes me wonder what exactly that means. The fact of the matter is that America is not a democracy, nor has it ever been.
Throughout 1787 and 1788 a series of articles were published in the newspapers of our new nation. These articles were written by three of our nation’s founding fathers: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. The collected publications, now known as The Federalist Papers, argued for the ratification of the US Constitution, and remain an important source for interpretation of that document.
These articles make it clear that our new nation, under the Constitution, would not be a true democracy. They point out numerous flaws the founding fathers saw with the democratic system, including the tyranny of mob rule, and instead proposed that a republic would be a more just form of government that would more able to protect the rights of the citizens.
The founding fathers even set up an Electoral College to elect the president, fearing that the masses would be swayed by charismatic yet corrupt politicians. The success of the Electoral College is, of course, dubious.
Despite the myth of democracy that is perpetuated by our politicians and our public school system, this nation remains a republic. The people do not vote on what laws should be passed, repealed, or amended. Instead, they elect senators and representatives to do this for them.
These congresspersons draft and pass laws that the people themselves, if they had the option, might vote down. Yet the people have no say about whether or not an unpopular law gets passed, and they can’t even repeal it. All they can do is vote a congressperson they’re unhappy with out of office, and replace that politician with another.
Also, as was made clear in the 2000 election, a presidential candidate can lose the popular vote and still win office. There are no presidential recalls –- an individual can only be removed from the highest office by impeachment, and that can only be done if he or she has broken the law.
So America is not a true democracy. That doesn’t mean it’s a bad place. Indeed, I happen to think the Founding Fathers were right to fear the mob-rule of a democracy, and to instead construct a system with checks and balances on power.
Article comments
1 - Alan Kurtz
Good article, Mike. I appreciate the way you laid the issue out in a simple, straightforward way that political non-sophisticates such as myself can follow.
Citing "the rules for voting," you assert that "people should vote on matters that are important to them, and on matters that they are informed about." I realize you're not referring here to actual rules, but rather to a sense of what would be ideal.
Yet perhaps it's time to reconsider literacy tests as a legal voting requirement. Literacy tests got a deservedly bad name during the Jim Crow era, when Southern states administered them in a racially discriminatory manner that disfranchised millions of African Americans. That was wrong, and was remedied by the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since then, we've heard little talk of literacy tests.
However, if fairly administered, such tests could go a long way towards achieving your ideal, Mike, of having only informed voters cast ballots, or in a more refined application, allowing citizens to vote only on those candidates and/or issue about which they can demonstrate sufficient familiarity.
I understand that Professor Odom has instructed you and his other OU writing students to not respond to comments on your Blogcritics articles. But I hope that when he's not looking over your shoulder, you can sneak in your thoughts on this point for me. Thanks, Mike.
2 - roger nowosielski
Rather moot point, Alan whether you conceptualize our political system as a democracy or a republic,don't you think? And what's the solution now? To disenfranchise the great masses of people we have produced? That would be like trying to eradicate cancer by killing off the cancerous cells.
3 - Alan Kurtz
Say, what, Roger? I'm unschooled in medicine (as in practically everything else), but I thought that "killing off the cancerous cells" is precisely how oncologists fight cancer in their patients. What else would you call today's surgical, pharmaceutical and radiological treatments?
4 - Alan Kurtz
Mike, re my comment #2: on second thought, it's probably better that you don't respond. If Mel Odom is really so spiteful as to lower somebody's grade or flunk that student because they disobeyed his order to not comment on these threads, then you'd be well advised to play the game by his rules, get a passing grade, and move on to your next class. There is simply no arguing with the petty tyrants of academia. They have all the power and you have none.
5 - roger nowosielski
Well, perhaps the analogy wasn't a happy one. Killing the patient is the most effective remedy.
6 - Alan Kurtz
Re #3: given today's sophisticated testing methodology and electronic devices to instantly evaluate results, focused literacy tests would certainly not "disenfranchise the great masses of people." Only individuals with insufficient knowledge of candidates or issues on a particular ballot would be disqualified. And even then, we can fine tune it so that a voter's choices would count on candidates and issues about which he or she is familiar; only on matters where the voter is inadequately informed would his or her selection be disallowed. And rest assured, no voters would be killed like cancerous cells, to adopt your unfortunate simile.
7 - STM
Mike: "The fact of the matter is that America is not a democracy".
Oh no, Mike, not this hoary old chestnut. You piece is good but based on a flawed premise. That's because meanings change in English because of common usage.
So, yes, America is a democracy, especially if you don't use democracy as a noun or use the term only the way it was used to describe, say, ancient Greece.
"Democracy" and "a democracy" are actually two different things, although in modern English usage - going right back to the start of the 20th century - they pretty much mean the same thing, and can now include a republic under a constitution like the US, or a constitutional monarchy like Britain or Australia.
Democracy no longer means mob rule in English usage. It means a country that is free, that values human rights and protects them, offers its citizens certain freedoms as part of the contract, offers them the right to vote in free and fair elections where their vote elects people who serve them as representatives, like in Congress or Parliament, and has as its key pillar rule of law. These are the places regarded as democratic and as democracies, regardless of the hair-splitting that goes on.
Talking about democracy and America in the modern sense ... these days, it IS interchangeable and does apply simply because the term no longer means what it used to.
With respect, why not cut the navel gazing on this one and just f.cking get on with it :)
8 - roger nowosielski
But wouldn't that be like rigging the election result so as to come up with a desirable outcome? Besides, what for some may be ignorance could well be the beginning of wisdom for others,
You're assuming in addition that the ill-working of our political system can be traced to uninformed electorate, ignoring the possibility that the problems may be structural and systemic. Perhaps you're relying here too much on the juridical model, as applicable, say, to the process of jury selection. I think the onus is on you to argue the analogy is a valid one.
9 - STM
As an aside, you could have argued using the old meaning that the Soviet Union was a democracy, although in modern English usage, it would never have been described that way.
Clearly, it never was, even at the outset.
10 - Alan Kurtz
Roger (#9), if you mean voir dire, I'd say that's a poor model. Whenever I've been summoned for jury duty, voir dire has been so superficial as to be useless. To weed out those who are insufficiently informed, focused literacy testing of prospective voters would have to be considerably more stringent than voir dire.
11 - roger nowosielski
I have misgivings concerning the applicability of the model, whatever the selection criteria. Citizenship is like a birthright; so the onus ought to be on educating the electorate rather than on weeding them out by tests or the like.
12 - STM
Al: "voir dire".
Ah, talking of altered meanings:
Now there's a classic example of how usage changes. In the US, I believe it is about testing the waters in jury selection; in Australia, it means a separate hearing before a judge only and not counted as part of a jury trial, in order for lawyers in a criminal case to test the relevance or admissibility of the evidence and the comptency of witnesses - away from the jury and without any bearing whatsoever on the trial. It also now means any instance during a trial when the jury is removed.
A trial within a trial, if you like, but with no bearing on the outcome.
No doubt the original meaning remains in both instances (what is truth), especially regarding comptency of witnesses and jurors, but in effect in the near-identical criminal jurisdictions of two native-English-speaking countries, they have come to mean totally different things.
Then there's "Fanny". I couldn't use it in polite conservation at work without being reported to Human Resources.
So many pitfalls for the unwary.
13 - handyguy
Deciding what would go into a "literacy test" would in itself become a political decision. It's a wretched idea, and was deservedly shouted down when bigot candidate Tom Tancredo suggested it a few months ago. It not only carries a destructive amount of baggage from Jim Crow days -- it would almost certainly and deservedly be declared unconstitutional.
14 - Alan Kurtz
Actually, I was just probing Mike's assertion that "people should vote on matters that are important to them, and on matters that they are informed about." Literacy tests may not be the best mechanism to achieve that goal. But if not, what is?
Or possibly you don't agree with Mike. Maybe you think it's OK for people to cast ballots on candidates and issues about which they are uninformed. In which case, the status quo is fine.
15 - kohler
btw
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill preserves the Electoral College, while assuring that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election.
Elections wouldn't be about winning states. Every vote would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
Now 2/3rds of the states and voters are ignored -- 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states, and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. The current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states, and not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution, ensure that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Voter turnout in the "battleground" states has been 67%, while turnout in the "spectator" states was 61%. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states. The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These seven states possess 76 electoral votes -- 28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See National Popular Vote