I recently started a thread where I was questioning whether the US was indeed a democracy or not. Most if not all responses implied that the current system, although not democratic in the sense that there are no plebiscites, it was still considered to be democratic to some extent. Basically, the thread became a contention of definition rather than whether the US was truly democratic. (Mea culpa).
So let me try this another way. In consideration of the above thread, and the opinion expressed there in, I will accept that the US is a representative democracy. Let’s not dwell further on definitions.
Instead, lets discuss where the US political system is now and where it is headed.
In my opinion, the US political system is becoming less and less democratic. The entire system is driven by big money contributed by corporations and wealthy individuals to one of two political parties. Apart from an occasional independent candidate for lesser offices, the two parties dominate the US political system. In each election, the winner appears to be the party or candidate who best spent their money on advertising and marketing. The elected vote on issues that directly benefit the corporations and wealthy individuals who contributed to their campaigns. Kimstu brought up the term “plutocracy” to describe the system where the US politics is heading for. I think we may already be there. Although democratic, the US has never held a plebiscite on a federal level to decide on major issues. In the previous thread some people mentioned the apathy of the US people and the lack of interest of the average American to even bother voting. Does it not make you wonder why? Could it be that the average American is apathetic because they feel that it is pointless as the out come would not change anything? If you look at the agenda of the two US political parties, there aren’t any major differences.
So what do you think? Is the US democratic system under threat? Is plutocracy around the corner or is it already here? Is the average American not mature enough to handle a plebiscite?
The two-party system. The two-party system in the U.S. is caused by our “winner-takes-all” election system - the candidate that wins the plurality in a district/state wins all. Minor party candidates stand little chance because the person who votes for them benefits nothing from the vote; the losing candidate does not get a “piece” of the representational pie. Thus, the voter is more likely to vote for the major-party candidate with whom they most agree.
This is by now means a new phenomenon in America; we have always had a two-party system. Minor parties that start to become popular find their policies co-opted by a major party. The effect is that the two major parties remain close to the center, so as to appeal to the largest possible group of voters, and, accordingly, U.S. politics tend to be moderate. Whether this is a good or a bad thing is your call; my point is that it is not driven by money politics but rather by the electoral system.
The biggest predictor for who is elected is incumbency, rather than money. The two are often related, but an incumbent will usually beat off a well-financed challenger. Your money/advertising/marketing point is likely very accurate where there is an open seat.
What is your obsession with plebiscites? They are just as open to manipulation as any other form of democracy. The modern leader who introduced plebiscites as a tool was Emperor Napoleon III. In the U.S. experience, plebiscites at the state level can attract just as much money and advertising as elections.
Is there not a less sinister alternative explanation of low voter turnout in the U.S.? To wit - when there are about 80-100 million people voting, your vote really doesn’t count all that much. People are aware of this. I will try to do some research, but I bet that U.S. states with lower populations (and where each vote counts for more) have higher voting rates than larger states.
Is the U.S. a plutocracy? No more than it has ever been. Voters still count; if money were the issue, Bush wouldn’t be agonizing so much over stem cell research - the money (in terms of medical research and sale of potential future treatments) is all on the side of allowing stem cell research, and Bush would have already decided to allow it.
Yes, Bill Gates has more political influence than you or I, but he doesn’t control.
Oops, one other point about the two-party system. Most other democracies have it as well. Yes, PR allows minor parties a voice in their nations’ parliaments, but in Germany, the Christian Democrats or Social Democrats have always been the major party in any coalition, in Israel it is either Likud or Labor, in Spain, the Socialists or the Popular Party, etc., etc.
To the extent that minor parties have power as members of coalitions, they also have an undemocratic effect. Why should a party with, say, 5% of the vote hold the balance of power and be able to blackmail the party with 46% of the vote into adopting at least portions of the minor party’s platform?
This may be the way it looks from the outside. But it seems to me that minor parties stand little or no chance unless they are backed with big money. In E2 Ross Perrot (is that the correct spelling?) tried and did fairly well, but he would not have gotten as far as he did if it weren’t for all the money he spent. This proves that without money, you stand little or no chance.
Agreed, but an incumbent may also have an easier time to raise money from contributors which in turn means more money can be spent on their campaigns earlier.
Perhaps it appears to be an obsession on my part, so let me try to clarify. Once elected the US president has more power than an individual should have in a true democratic society. There are issues where he should have the go ahead to make a decision, but there are other times when it is just not right for one individual to make a unilateral decision. The Kyoto treaty comes to mind. I think you would agree that this was a very controversial decision on Bush’s part. I know it would be difficult to determine when a president has the right to make such a decision, but in this case Bush made his decision by favoring the campaign contributors. In such cases I think a plebiscite would be appropriate.
This may be true. My opinion here tends to lean towards suspicion. But I am an optimist and would prefer to think your explanation is the more accurate. I certainly hope so, I would hate to think that the alternate is true.
I don’t think Bush is agonizing over morals here. Rather, he is agonizing where to place his bets. The rich pharmaceutical companies or the rich and influential religious organization. His decision here may very well affect his campaign in 2004. This probably should be decided through a plebiscite.
Think this is anything new? Think again. From the beginning, wealthy individuals and companies have been spending whatever they can to support friendly politicians.
I agree that a system in which one person was elected by a democratic vote to be Supreme Legislator and Chief Executive, with all powers of government, would be, if not “undemocratic”, then certainly illiberal. Even if the Elected Dictator was theoretically only in office for a limited term, it would still be dangerous.
However, the President of the United States is subject to “checks and balances”, even if we don’t have referendums on the federal level. Congress, after all, passes all the laws, and all spending appropriations–including the President’s salary–must originate not just with Congress but with the House of Representatives, the most democratic branch of the federal government. Then there’s the Supreme Court. In fact, in formal terms, the President’s powers are rather weak, although the modern rise of things like “executive orders” and “executive agreements” has certainly increased presidential power.
Certainly the existing institutions can become corrupted. Personally, though, I’m leery of more “direct democracy” as a remedy. As has already been pointed out, plebiscites and referendums can be manipulated by monied interests (or would-be dictators). And I tend to think that having direct referendums on our laws would result in a lot of hare-brained and even tyrannical laws being passed, and plutocrats would still be able to manipulate things, especially where complex technical issues are involved. (Remember the “Harry and Louise” ads?)
Ross Perot did not do “fairly well”; he lost. And, due to our “winner-takes-all” system, he got bupkus - he didn’t win a piece of the presidency. Perot is living proof that third parties, even well-financed ones, stand little chance in the United States.
The only successful “third party” in U.S. history is (drum roll, please) … the Republican Party, and the only way it succeeded was driving a hopelessly divided Whig party out of business. The United States system of government, established 212 years ago, is such that only two parties at a time, both with broad appeal, will be successful. If a third party gets massive funding, etc., it’s only hope of success is to replace one of the two current parties.
You can see the problems with referendums most easily in California. So much of the state’s budget has been co-opted by initiatives that it is very difficult for the state’s legislators to get anything done (it makes shuffling money around nearly impossible).
In addition, you can get a tyranny of the majority. Look at some of the devisive ballot initiatives Californians have passed recently: Barring illegal immigrants from receiving government services, ending affirmative action, banning bilingual education, etc…
Don’t think there is money and vested interests in referendums? Think again. Tim Draper (Silicon Valley money) personally spent $20 million on Proposition 38 (school vouchers). Teacher’s unions in California outspent their opponents 10:1 in the early 90’s defeating school voucher initiatives. In other initiatives around the country you see names like George Soros, Peter Lewis and John Sperling pop up…very rich men crusading for a pet cause.
I am not here to argue the merits or lack of merits of the above issues. I’m merely pointing out how referendums do not necessarily serve everyone’s interests better than our current federal system and how they are hardly immune to special interests. Check out Democracy Derailed : Initiative Campaigns and the Power of Money by David S. Broder for an interesting read on this issue.
Sometimes what seems a travesty of democracy by having someone with power making unilateral decisions is a good thing. President Lincoln was not a popular guy for awhile. Had the country held a plebiscite on the Civil War the North probably would have pulled out and let the South win. I think most people would reason that that would have been a bad thing in the end.
We vote for our candidates and (presumably) trust them to do their job. Certainly they are affected by special interest groups and a desire to be re-elected. Nevertheless they are usually in a better position than we are to consider in greater detail all of the issues at stake. I’m not sure referendums that ask that yes or no decisions on complex issues are the best way to go. How many people do you think (nationwide) really understand human stem cell research and its scientific, philosophical and theological implications? How many do you suppose have an opinion based on not much more than a cursory examination of the issue and a knee-jerk reaction? Who would you rather have setting policy?
I forgot to wrap-up my previous post to the question posed in the OP…Is US Democracy Under Threat?
My answer would be no because the US was never a ‘pure’ democracy in the first place and neither was it intended to be nor should it be.
Pure democracy, in my view, would be much more along the lines of a Libertarian take on government. While attractive on paper I don’t think it is workable in practice (as I’ve pointed out in other threads on this board in the past). I also realize that there is disagreement on this point (where’s Libertarian when you need him?) but nonetheless I’m not sure even the Libertarian view could be called a ‘pure’ democracy…just mroe democratic than wht we currently have.
You see this in other places as well. ‘Pure’ Communism does not exist but ends up being various forms of Socialism. Neither does ‘pure’ Capitalism exist. In the end these are idealised theories that don’t work well, if at all, in the real world.
Instead we come up with hybrids. Picking and choosing what we think makes the most sense. What the United States has is by no means perfect. I think Thomas Jefferson once said something to the effect of, “The system of government in the United States is terrible but it’s still the best in the world.” (Or something to that effect…it’s a very vague recollection) History bears this out. The US may be one of the youngest countries in the world but it has one of the oldest continual governmental systems (nearly every other country in the world has had some major switch in governments over the past 200 or so years).
So, is democracy under threat in the US? Nope.
Does making it more democratic make sense (i.e. more referendums and the like)? Maybe but, as I posted earlier, I don’t think you’d find plebiscites a magic bullet for the country’s woes and might find it makes things worse.
Yes and no. It depends on how you define “success.” If you define success as the third party itself surviving for the long term, then you are probably right. However, if you define success in terms of the ideas promoted by the third party surviving, well then that’s a different matter.
Example: The People’s Party (the Populist Party)managed to win a number of seats in Congress and made a respectable showing in Presidential elections in the late 19th Century. Now they ultimately crashed and burned, but they crashed and burned in part because the Democrats and Republicans co-opted a lot of their ideas.
You could also argue that some of Ross Perot’s ideas have survived, in the form of the current debate over election reform. The Reform Party is a mere shell, but the idea of reform lives on.
The Green Party will never survive in the US, in my view, but the marginal success of its Presidential candidate may lead the other parties to attend to some of its issues.
Excellent point, spoke-. I was only speaking in terms of electoral success. At many times in American history, third parties influenced, and occasionally drove, the debate on various policies.
Haven’t seen anyone mention the United Nations International Court of Justice decree against the USA (/Arizona?) in the Lagrand case (Germany vs. United States of America).
I think this may be a greater threat to democracy…
So far no one has denied that US politics is driven by capital. As a matter of fact Crusoe, MEBuckner & Whack-a Mole all pointed out that referendums would still be influenced by capital. Well money politics is wrong. As I have mentioned on another thread, capitalism is not a political system. It is an economic system (or theory). The US is meant to be a representative democracy. Unfortunately, the politicians represent money, not your average citizen. Whether we should introduce referendums or not on a federal level is one issue. How we do it is another. Obviously, some form of control over capital expenditure would be appropriate. Actually, it would be appropriate even were we to maintain the current system.
You could look at this another way too. Perhaps we wouldnft have wasted countless lives and 15 years on a useless war in Vietnam if we had held a plebiscite. Uncle Eric may still be around today if we had had our say back then.
Whack-a Mole questions the average Americanfs ability to rule themselves. Perhaps I am an optimist, but I believe your average citizen is smart enough to decide these matters. Other nations have referendums on important matters. Is the average American not smart enough or well educated enough to make that decision?
Again, letfs look at it another way. If you elect one leader to make the decisions for you, you may end up with an idiot making stupid decisions. Again the Kyoto treaty comes to mind. Bush unilaterally decided that my children and grand children and so on down the line does not deserve to breathe clean air. He has also decided whatever clean up efforts and costs will be burdened by our future generations. I donft know about you, but that is one incredibly big decision for one man to make. Remember, this decision affects the whole world. I just donft think that one man (who was questionably elected) should have that much power.
Thomas Jefferson was right, and the current system certainly was the best for 1776. It is now 2001. Perhaps we should stop living in the past. I think it was 1976 when the Swiss actually finally allowed women to vote. Since then the Swiss hold more national referendum on major issues than any other country in the world. In 25 short years, the Swiss have become more democratic than any other nation on earth. We need to move ahead, not stick to a system of the past. I am certain that Jefferson would agree based on the quoted lament of his. It sounded as if he was forced to accept the best for his time. If he were alive today, I am sure he would have expected more.
Nice Guy Jack, I still think you’re being optimistic over the public’s ability to recognise and make decisions in its own long-term interest. Two things spring to mind.
Firstly, restricting plebiscite campaigning funds is a fine move, but how would you restrict the media? Every TV station, radio station and newspaper has an opinion and an owner with an opinion. When the public are making decisions based on information supplied from sources not noted for their objectivity, you’ve got a whole new problem.
Secondly, I don’t believe even an informed populace will be as capable of making decisions that might hurt in the short term but work in the long term as does a representative government. HOw many would vote for tax cuts over spending on the arts or social services, purely because the public money does not benefit them personally?
I agree. I don’t think I have said we should go to an extreme form of all issues to be put to a vote. I just think it’s time to bring a few issues to the people for the people to decide. We certainly have the technology to pull it off, something Jefferson was restricted from in his time.
In the current political climate, we are seeing the power of the people slip away to be replaced by corporate spending.
I don’t mind little baby steps to begin with, we just need to start moving.
You’re absolutely right…I do have a dim view on American’s ability to rule themselves and I do think you are too optimistic in your assessment of the average citizen.
I’m not alone in this either. Our founding fathers didn’t trust Joe Citizen entirely either (the Electoral College is one aspect of this). They could have drawn up a government more directly ruled by the populace but they didn’t and that was in the face of trying draw-up a more representative government in the first place. They realized that at some point more direct rule by the people doesn’t serve the people’s best interests and I bow to their wisdom. After 200+ years the world has yet to see a better document written laying out the foundations of a government (at least IMO).
Crusoe pointed out some problems with more ‘democratic’ rule nicely. In addition, down that path I see a tyranny of the majority. In the past whites outnumbered blacks (and maybe still do…I don’t know). They certainly voted more even after blacks were granted that right and stopped being chased away from the polls (although some would argue that still happens today to some extent…to wit black disenfranchisement in Florida this past election). Granted, whites have always controlled the government but I believe you’d see much less in the way of affirmative action and its ilk had we done referendums on such issues. In my view that would make for a much less equal (less being a relative term) society and to me that is a bad thing.
So? You can’t equate the Swiss to the US in this fashion. What works for them will not necessarily work for us. The Swiss have a much more homogenous society than the US does. Their economy is nowhere near as diverse or as large as ours is. They are much more isolationist than the US is and have correspondingly fewer concerns in the world at large. As a result they are able to come to a national consensus much more easily than the US can without worrying about whose toes might be getting stepped upon along the way.
DISCLAIMER: For this bit I am playing Devil’s Advocate. Personally I’m not thrilled with Vietnam and why we were there or Bush’s handling of the Kyoto Accords.
I don’t see how having referendums necessarily improves anything. You mention Vietnam in response to what might have happened had we had a referendum on the Civil War. At the time of the Civil War most people were not happy with it. History has shown us that indeed Lincoln was right and although the war was miserable it defined a country and was ultimately a good thing.
History has also shown us that Vietnam was a debacle on all sorts of levels.
Unfortunately it is history that is the problem with all of these things. That is to say, you can never really know what is right and what is wrong till you have hindsight to put it into perspective (and sometimes not even then). Maybe not going into Vietnam would have been a bad decision. I don’t really believe that but the fact is we can never really know…only speculate. The same goes for Kyoto. We may never know what would have happened if we signed on. Maybe our economy would have tanked as a result and brought all sorts of social unrest and maybe even wars as the US is less and less able to be the ‘police man’ for the world. Would that be worth cleaner air?
I agree that reform is needed in this area.
Still, what do you think companies are? For the most part they are a collection of investors…you and me. The are not some entirely separate entity that has interests wholly at odds with Joe Citizen. Joe Citizen invests in them and Joe Citizen works for them.
Also, remember that money comes from all different sides. Money politics would be especially bad if there were only two or three megacorporations getting represented. In reality we have money flowing in from all dofferent directions. Logging companies want right to tear down some stretch of forest and try to get someone sympathetic to them in office. The tourist industry wants that forest left alone so they can make money from visitors and they try to get their guy in. The religious right pushes their guy and throw tons of money into it and liberals toss money at their people.
Certainly this gets lopsidded once in awhile and you can point to some groups that seem to weild disproportionate power (AARP and the NRA come to mind). The Bush cabinet is a Who’s Who of oilmen. However, even they can’t get their agendas pushed through willy-nilly. There is usually enough push back from the other side to lend some balance to the whole system.
In the end you need to blame the voters…or rather the non-voters. “But my vote doesn’t count” my ass. Can you imagine what our government would look like if every eligible minority voter actually voted? I don’t care how much money GM and Microsoft threw at an election…you’d see a very different government makeup than we have today and nearly every politician would be bending over backwards to placate those people.
That doesn’t sound right. I don’t think war should ever be described as ‘good’. Let me say instead that the American Civil War ultimately turned out to be a necessary thing.