In the United States, Democracy is a Lie

Do you ever wonder why it seems we’re always having the same fights over public policy? Why is it that after we get off our butts, stand in line for hours at the polls, cast our ballots, and are told we “won,” nothing seems to get resolved? Aren’t elections supposed to have consequences? What happened to “We the People”?

Americans grow up believing they live in a democracy, indeed the world’s greatest democracy. Too bad that’s a lie.

Consider gun control. Polls show broad support for gun-control measures that President Obama and Democrats have championed in the wake of the Sandy Hook School massacre. A recent Quinnipiac University survey found that 53 percent of Americans support “stricter gun laws in the United States,” 91 percent support background checks for all gun buyers, 59 percent support a nationwide ban on “assault weapons,” and 58 percent support a ban on magazines that hold more than 10 bullets.

You would think that in a democracy, these kinds of numbers would compel elected leaders to action. But you would be wrong.

Yes, I know that technically the U.S. is supposed to be a “republic,” or a “representative democracy,” and not a direct democracy. But in modern usage, the word “democracy” describes most systems of representative government based on universal adult suffrage. That said, the word “representative” is fast becoming meaningless when applied to our system of government.

Take U.S. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (that’s “minority” as in less than a majority, or “a few,” not as in African-American, Hispanic, Asian, gay, etc.). McConnell announced earlier this week that he would join 13 other GOP senators in filibustering a proposed new gun law, even though he doesn’t know yet exactly what will be in the legislation. It now appears that McConnell and his crew won’t actually block debate on the legislation, but they may still block an up or down vote on the bill itself.

Of course, the Senate is an inherently undemocratic institution. It was designed, in the words of James Madison, “to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” Every state gets two senators, whether deep red Wyoming with its 576,000 residents or bright blue California with its 38 million people. To make matters worse, Senate rules allow as few as 41 of the Senate’s 100 members to block most action through the filibuster and other procedural mechanisms.

McConnell and his fellow Republicans need consider only the parochial concerns of their own narrow constituencies. As far as McConnell is concerned, “public opinion” doesn’t exist outside the boundaries of deep red, gun-toting Kentucky. Thus, he and many of his fellow Republicans will happily crap on the graves of 20 dead children in Newtown if it makes the ghouls at the NRA who fill McConnell’s campaign coffers happy.

Ah, but historians will tell you that while the Senate was intended to be a deliberative body and to serve as a check on mob rule, the U.S. House of Representatives is the “People’s House,” with seats apportioned to the states based on population and representatives collectively reflecting the popular will.

Yeah. Not so much. Democratic House candidates outpolled Republicans nationwide by almost 1.2 million votes in last November’s elections. Yet, Republicans held onto a 33-seat majority, thanks to gerrymandering by GOP-controlled state legislatures. Republicans took advantage of the 2010 GOP wave and the decennial census to redraw congressional districts to maximum partisan advantage. Thus, they were able to capture 54 percent of seats while getting only 48 percent of the vote. How’s that for majority rule? Nor will it be easy for Democrats to break this stranglehold. Even if they had beaten Republicans House candidates nationwide by about 8 percent of the vote in 2012, Democrats still would have managed to gain only a five-seat majority in the House. Keep in mind that when Republicans captured the House in 2010, they had only a 6.6 percent margin of victory nationwide but secured a commanding 49-seat majority. Now that’s gerrymandering.

The GOP-dominated U.S. Supreme Court effectively gave such partisan machinations its blessing in a 2006 decision upholding a 2003 Texas redistricting scheme engineered by former Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (yes, the same Tom DeLay whose money laundering conviction is currently on appeal). Unless opponents of redistricting can show that a plan dilutes the votes of an ethnic or racial group in violation of the Voting Rights Act, state lawmakers are generally free to carve up House districts any way they like. Indeed, international election observers monitoring U.S. national elections in 2004 criticized the U.S. congressional redistricting process and recommended that procedures be reviewed to ensure genuine competitiveness of Congressional election contests. Can you say “Banana Republic”?

Another effect of gerrymandering, besides producing a House unrepresentative of the national electorate, is increased polarization and a reluctance to compromise, as safe Republican (and sometimes Democratic) districts mean lawmakers have more reason to fear a primary challenge from within their own parties than they do a general election challenge. Because it’s easier for party extremists to influence the smaller and more ideologically homogenous primary electorate, groups like the Tea Party wield an influence far greater than their numbers would suggest.

The Supreme Court itself is supposed to be above the political fray. Although the justices are appointed by presidents and confirmed by the Senate, lifetime tenure was supposed to be a guarantee of independence and nonpartisanship. But the Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore, effectively handing the presidency to George Bush in 2000 despite ongoing recounts in too-close-to-call Florida (not to mention Gore’s victory in the national popular vote), effectively ended that charade. If there were still any question, the Citizens United decision (prohibiting laws restricting “independent” political expenditures by corporations and unions) and Antonin Scalia’s recent overtly partisan rants attacking President Obama on immigration and health care reform should put to rest any notion that the Court is anything but a political body. Indeed, the very lifetime appointments that are supposed to protect the Court’s independence tend to ensure that past presidents’ predilections and prejudices endure long after they have left office.

Then there’s the Electoral College. Before Bush v. Gore many Americans had largely forgotten about this relic of the 18th Century. Besides the 2000 election, the elections of 1824, 1876 and 1888 also resulted in the election of presidents who had not received a plurality of the national popular vote. In fact, ours is the only “democratic” country that still selects a politically powerful president (as opposed to a president who serves as a figurehead or ceremonial head of state) without regard to the national popular vote.

Most states award their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis according to the popular vote within each state. However, Republicans in control of legislatures in states that typically vote – or have recently voted – Democratic in presidential elections, such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia and Florida, have pushed to change that to award electoral votes by House district. Yes, we’re talking about the same House districts that Republicans have gerrymandered to give themselves a partisan advantage. If these plans had been in place in 2012, Mitt Romney would likely have won the last election, despite Obama having received almost 5 million more votes nationwide. These proposals are on top of new voter I.D. laws, cuts in early voting and other measures designed to depress voter turnout.

Add to all this the fact that corporations and billionaires can spend unlimited sums to influence not just presidential and congressional elections but those for state legislatures and governorships, and the old-fashioned notion of one person, one vote seems increasingly quaint.

The result of all this is that under our system of government we can have a leadership profoundly at odds with the will of the people. That’s why no-brainer proposals such as universal background checks for gun purchases, immigration reform, and eliminating tax loopholes for the very rich are still in doubt, despite public support for these measures and despite the results of the 2012 presidential election.

The bottom line is that there is a disconnect between the boasts we make to our school children and the world about our “democracy” and the reality of our dysfunctional political process. Where once we were seen as a beacon of hope for developing countries moving toward self-governance, today our experience best serves as a warning about the corrosive effects of provincialism, runaway campaign spending and political cowardice.

http://thebigslice.org/in-the-united...racy-is-a-lie/