Democracy for What? It's Election Time

Fourth Quarter 2002

by James W. Skillen

American democracy is the model for the world, is it not? We have been at the practice of democracy longer than any other country. Our system, at least since the Civil War, has been stable. And American citizens will once again affirm democracy's legitimacy on November 5 when we go to the polls. What more is there to say?

Actually, there is quite a bit more to say, and much of it is not all that positive. Americans may love America, but they are not so confident about their government and the election process. Even the right to vote does not inspire more than about half the eligible voters to exercise that right.

The truth is that the American constitutional system is not very democratic at all, says Robert A. Dahl, "dean" of American political scientists and a democracy fanatic if there ever was one. In his new book, How Democratic Is the American Constitution? (Yale University Press), Dahl says, "I, for one, am inclined to think that compared with the political systems of the other advanced democratic countries, ours is among the most opaque, complex, confusing, and difficult to understand."

Dahl is not alone in complaining about the American system. Award-winning Washington Post columnist David S. Broder has written again and again about the decline of American political parties, low voter turnout, and the negative impact of interest groups. In a recent Post column he focused attention on the inability of our federal system to deal with urgent national problems. What is conspicuously missing from our system, says Broder, "is any forum where elected officials at all three levels of government can have a serious discussion about national goals and national resources. Nowhere are the law enforcement needs of Detroit or the education needs of Montana weighed in the balance against the elimination of the federal estate tax or the purchase of the latest generation of high-tech weaponry.... Our system of government is notoriously shortsighted; we do not act until a crisis is upon us."

What's Wrong with Our Democracy?

Dahl's new book provides a valuable point of entry to the discussion of the American system as we head into the November elections. As Hendrik Hertzberg puts it, Dahl "is not a crank" (The New Yorker, 7/29/02); he's emeritus professor at Yale University, member of the National Academy of Sciences, former president of the American Political Science Association, and the winner of so many awards they can't be listed here.

Dahl's question is, in my opinion, too narrowly focused. However it illuminates a reality most of us overlook because we just keep repeating the dogma we learned in school, that the United States is the greatest democracy in the world. To the contrary, Dahl explains, our constitutional system thwarts true democracy at many turns. The original Constitution sustained slavery; the Senate represents states rather than citizens in an equal democratic way; the electoral college makes possible the undemocratic election of the president (as it did in 2000); and the electoral system produces an inadequately representative two-party system that often yields electoral results that overrepresent majorities and underrepresent minorities. "My reflections," writes Dahl, thus "lead me to a measured pessimism about the prospects for greater democratization of the American Constitution." Part of the problem with Dahl's approach and analysis, however, is that he sees the purpose of democracy to be largely democracy itself. In other words, he wishes that the American system could be reformed simply to achieve greater equality among individuals. But what is the end or goal of government? Democracy in itself says nothing about why democracy or any other form of government should exist and what governments should be held accountable to do.

If we start with the recognition that an adequately representative political system should exist to enhance government's calling to do justice, then we can look at the electoral system and ask how it contributes to the quest for justice. Dahl gets closest to this question, without knowing it, when he compares countries whose electoral systems encourage two-party competition with countries whose systems encourage multi-party competition. In the first type of system, like that of the United States, which Dahl calls "majoritarian," citizens who vote for losing candidates are far less satisfied with the working of their democracy than are citizens who vote for losing candidates in countries that have a multiparty system, which Dahl calls "consensual." Why is this? The reason, Dahl explains, is that if you live in a country with a multi-party consensual system like Germany or The Netherlands and you vote for a party that comes in "second, or third, or maybe even fourth, you're likely to feel satisfied with the way democracy works because you know your views will still be represented in the government" (emphasis added).

In other words, a multiparty system of electoral representation that makes possible the proportional representation of more parties in legislative bodies does greater justice to the voices of all citizens as they try to make their cases for what government ought to do. Citizens in the United States who vote for a losing representative or a losing party gain no voice for their convictions at all. Electoral systems with proportional representation make it possible for most citizens to be represented according to their political convictions. The primary problem in the United States, in my view, is that our two major parties do not adequately represent the diverse views of the population or encourage serious debate among those with different points of view. Consequently, more and more voters each year are moving away from any serious attachment to those parties.

A Realistic Proposal for America

There is a realistic way, which Dahl does not recognize, by which to help bring about many of the changes he would like to see. The reform I have in mind comes to light if we quit worrying about the major pillars of the American system that are not likely to change and focus instead on that part of our system where change takes place every ten years for the sake of upholding an important principle of proportionality. Each state in the Union is allowed to have a certain number of seats in the House of Representatives based on the percentage of the national population that resides in it. For this reason, after each decade's census, states may have to redraw their congressional electoral district lines to add or subtract districts in accord with the number of House seats each is allowed.

What if we inaugurated a real reform and established true multiparty proportionality? Instead of spending millions of dollars every ten years to redraw congressional district boundaries, it would be far easier, cheaper, and more just to declare each state, in its entirety, a single district, which would never have to be "redistricted" again. Then different parties could each put forward the number of candidates that equals the number of seats that state is allowed to have in the House of Representatives.

For example, let's say your state has 20 seats in the House. If the Democrats win 40 percent of the vote, then they will get 40 percent or eight of those seats. If the Republicans win 40 percent of the vote, they will also get eight seats; no more and no less than the percentage their votes allow. That still leaves 20 percent or four of the seats, which would be won by smaller parties. The libertarians might win five percent of the vote and get one of those seats. Perhaps a green party or a public justice party would win one or two seats, and another party the remaining seats. Many more voices would gain representation in Congress.

Since Americans are already used to seeing redrawn districts for House seats every 10 years, it is not hard to understand that the percentage of their state's population determines the number of House seats it gets. A proportionality system for congressional elections simply takes that reality to the next level, allowing more parties to gain representation in proportion to the number of votes each party can win.

Once this electoral system goes into effect, it would have great influence on the conduct of campaigns for the Senate, even though only one senator is elected at a time in each state. Voters might soon be ready for a two-stage election in which many parties could run Senate candidates in the first round and if no candidate wins a majority of the votes, the top two candidates could compete in a runoff that would determine who goes to the Senate. [See the following article on instant runoff voting that accomplishes the same thing with a single trip to the polls: Electoral Reform Widens.]

The same runoff system could be used for the presidential campaign, in the event that no candidate wins a majority of votes the first time around—as happened in each of the last three presidential elections. Every party could field a presidential candidate in the first round, greatly enhancing the national debate over policies and national direction. The top two candidates would compete in a runoff, thus assuring that a single president is chosen. There is a way, Mr. Dahl.