America 101: Democracy

 

I’m starting my first special series of posts on this blog–dedicated to the inauguration of Donald Trump (what a surreal phrase to have to type)–with the supposed foundational concept of our government, and that it is a democracy.

Isn’t that the primary civics lesson we all receive in grade school? That America is the Great Democracy? (As if it’s the only democracy, which it isn’t).

The reason I’m questioning the truth of the nation’s democratic nature is because the claim comes with certain expectations–the main one being that we get to choose the people that govern us.

The other expectation is that we–the people–can change the tone of our leadership, the direction in which the government is leading the nation, and even the content of the laws that are used to govern us with our votes.

I know I’m not alone in feeling that the Presidential election of 2016 has thrown this contention into serious fucking doubt.

Merriam-Webster defines democracy as “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.”

And American government fits this definition, as far as I can see, until we get to the end–the “free election” part.

According to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the international organization established in 1889 in part for the “firm establishment of representative democracy,” there are seven criteria that qualify an election as free and fair.

Conveniently, the United States is not a part of the IPU, even though 171 member parliaments and 11 associate parliamentary organizations across the globe are.

Anyhow, according to the IPU:

(1) Every adult citizen has the right to vote in elections, on a non-discriminatory basis.

(2) Every adult citizen has the right to access to an effective, impartial and non-discriminatory procedure for the registration of voters.

(3) No eligible citizen shall be denied the right to vote or disqualified from registration as a voter, otherwise than in accordance with objectively verifiable criteria prescribed by law, and provided that such measures are consistent with the State’s obligations under international law.

(4) Every individual who is denied the right to vote or to be registered as a voter shall be entitled to appeal to a jurisdiction competent to review such decisions and to correct errors promptly and effectively.

(5) Every voter has the right to equal and effective access to a polling station in order to exercise his or her right to vote.

(6) Every voter is entitled to exercise his or her right equally with others and to have his or her vote accorded equivalent weight to that of others.

(7) The right to vote in secret is absolute and shall not be restricted in any manner whatsoever.

In America, felons and aliens (I really do hate that term) cannot vote, by law.

While one can argue that aliens are not citizens, and so they shouldn’t be allowed to vote for the leadership in a country that isn’t “theirs,” the disfranchisement of felons is a trickier thing to justify in a so-called democracy.

There are actually 21 countries in the world where felons can vote while in prison; 14 countries where only certain felons can vote while in prison; 10 countries where felons cannot vote while in prison; and only four countries where felons cannot vote even after they have been released from prison.

Yes, America–with all its talk of freedom, equality, inalienable rights, and rehabilitative prison policy–is one of those four countries where felons can be permanently disfranchised after they are released from prison.

The policy varies from state to state, but, as of now, in Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, Tennessee, and Wyoming, felons can lose their right to vote for perpetuity, which throws into question whether US elections can be regarded as “free and fair.”

Also, state laws often make it exceedingly difficult for Americans in certain regions to register to vote.

Then, there are the continual problems with voter fraud in federal elections, including underage people casting votes, dead people casting votes, people casting multiple votes, and aliens casting votes.

These things would be bad enough if in the Presidential election the popular vote determined the winner, but we also have the electoral college in the US, which pretty much negates the hell out of precept #6–“Every voter is entitled to exercise his or her right equally with others and to have his or her vote accorded equivalent weight to that of others.”

As we saw with W and again with Trump, the popular electorate can choose one candidate, but, because popular votes select electors, electors decide the Presidents, and the districts of the college are divided as illustrated below, that candidate can still lose the election.

Which makes one question, again, whether an election run by such a convoluted process can be regarded as “free and fair.”

And then there is the logical premise of the electoral college.

“[The framers of the Constitution] decided to delegate the decision [of who should be President] to wise elites. The framers thought they would be a check on demagogues and the popular passions,” says Jeffrey Rosen, president of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.

The “people” is everyone, not a group of “elites.” So is America a democracy or something decidedly less, well, democratic?

Let’s look at it through another lens. Political sociologist Larry Diamond claims a democracy has four qualifications, if you will–

(1) A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections.

(2) The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life.

(3) Protection of the human rights of all citizens.

(4) A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.

I’ve already contested the idea that America has free and fair elections; only about 60% of Americans vote in Presidential elections and even less–40%–vote in midterm elections; there are a plethora of issues occurring in our country right now–Flint, the DAPL–that could be viewed as federally sanctioned human rights violations; and the application of laws and procedures in this nation are mitigated by everything from citizenship status to race to gender.

So America doesn’t qualify as a direct democracy, no. I think that’s a reasonable, if troubling, conclusion.

Political sociologists tend to label America as a presidential democracy. The signification of the modifier is this: we, the people, get compensated for not being able to change constitutional laws, put forth referendums, and give orders to elective officials (as we would in a direct democracy) by getting to elect House representatives and senators directly.  And, in turn, these members of Congress “funnel” our interests into legislation and protect us from tyrannical rule by “checking” and “balancing” the President that we don’t actually elect.

While direct democracy might be preferable, as might a Presidential electoral process determined by the popular vote, we aren’t afforded these things because American democracy is all about constitutionalism.

Constitutionalism is belief in “the superiority of constitutional government and the necessity of a written constitution as the foundation of constitutional government.”

And the Constitution, in Article II, Section 1, says the President shall be elected by the electoral college. It establishes a permanent, oligarchical element in our “democracy” that keeps us–the people–from being able to truly choose our leader.

So what does this mean?

For me, it means that Americans have to do one of two things–either alter our concept of how much control we have over our government or fight to gain more control and make the nation a purer form of democracy.

And I opt for B because the fact that Trump is getting to be President even though he didn’t win the popular vote does more than just stick in my craw; the idea of him running the country terrifies me, quite honestly.

Everything that I believed about the danger he presents to blacks, women, the poor before he was elected, I still believe.

His bullshit talk of “togetherness” means nothing when his Cabinet appointments reek of white supremacy and his Tweets give off subliminal vibes of mental instability.

So I think that we should do a few things–Americans that still give a fuck about this country and want it to be the exulted democracy is already pretends to be.

We need to vote in every federal election–midterm and Presidential.

We need to do some lobbying of our own and broker our votes–only give them to the candidates that are talking about the issues that matter to us, saying the things we need to hear, and providing plans to fix the things that we view as broken.

Or we can lobby the lobby by spending our consumer dollars much more strategically, as in with businesses and industries that propose or back legislation that benefits us and not just them.

One of the first measures for which we should push, come the midterm elections, is the eradication of the electoral college.

No House or Senate candidate should get our vote unless he or she is willing to form a coalition with other candidates and propose an amendment to the Constitution that says the popular or general vote will elect the President and Vice President.

Too, we should push for newer, stronger laws that protect us against voter fraud and discriminatory registration practices and make it more difficult for poll workers and others to obstruct people from voting.

We may even need to push for the establishment of a screening process for poll workers similar to the process used in jury selection.

I can’t remember where I heard this line that I’m about to quote, but I remember it clearly, and I quote it to myself all the time: “America is work.”

I think one of our jobs as American citizens is to keep America as honest as we can, and one of the only tools we have to do that is the vote.

The other is our money.

We were promised an American republic by the founders, but we should’ve also learned from them that instituting the sort of government you want takes a drawn-out series of battles.

Trump’s inauguration will necessitate a new fight for our democracy.

8 thoughts on “America 101: Democracy

  1. Matthew Mead

    Hello again, excellent post.

    Might I begin, as a Marylander, recommend against trusting “The Washington Times,” they are a Moonie owned (read psycho right wing), paper that exerts significant effort in painting themselves as “The Washington Post.” We definitely aren’t a democracy, and the deadlock the Reactionaries have on the House of Representatives is evidence of it. The gerrymandering put in place in 2010 is now a permanent fixture of American Democracy. For (I am going to use the term Democrat here, but to be honest it encapsulates all views Left of Jefferson Davis) Democrats to retake the House they first need to retake the State legislatures. The problem is that the State Legislature elections have been as badly gerrymandered as the Federal districts; meaning it is just as much an up hill battle.

    The Constitutional out for this is the Judicial system. In a perfect world, a suit would be brought before the court demanding redistricting. Unfortunately we know how this will play out with a court stacked by the Reactionaries: they will come up with some tortured reasoning.

    (I haven’t finished reading the article you linked, and its sources. Therefore it isn’t “shit” but knowing “The Washington Times” I am not holding my breath.)

    Like

    1. Matthew Mead

      I finished going through the article “http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/no-voter-fraud-isnt-myth-10-cases-where-its-all-to/” and could find no legitimate underlying sources.

      Like

  2. Matthew Mead

    I couldn’t find your Email so I hope it is not too intruding to drop this here; as you seem to be interested in social change.

    I have been thinking a great deal about the subject of race since the beginning of this election. I know it has always been a major factor in our society, but my position in the hierarchy has granted me the privilege of ignoring it.

    I have come to, not realize but accept the bone deep reality, that the concept of “white and black” is a toxic holdover of slavery. These are artificial designations based on said institution.

    My family is mostly Irish and Slovak (third generation away from the nuclear reactor). How is a persons melanin content any more relevant than, say my giant red Santa Claus nose, with regards to social classification? And yet when I see an article in the news regarding “White Americans” I have an instinctual alignment with those in question? What do I have in common, philosophically speaking, with some hateful people who also ancestrally hale from Europe? What is more important is questions of economic sufficiency and social acceptance of everyone.

    I think that the designations of “white” and “black” need to be done away with as concepts. Perhaps part of this is emphasizing the specific ancestry of everyone. If we are all from somewhere else we have something in common.

    Like

    1. The designations may be socially constructed, but doing away with them won’t eradicate the aesthetic differences in people, and it won’t neutralize the effects of our slave history. It’s not a fix. Plus, I like being “black.” I don’t want to be grouped in with other people. I want to continue identifying with the history of my ancestors and culture of my people. I just want to be respected as the black person that I am. Colorblindness is impossible when color exists. No one cares–on a gut level–about genetics.

      Like

      1. Matthew Mead

        Thank you for your kind response.

        I agree colorblindness is not a solution; we all have differences that make us what we are. I also would not like to deny an individuals self identification, as the ability to declare our individuality is one of the few agencies we have. Additionally I would not deny anyone a heritage which they wish to enjoy.

        I have been thinking very seriously as how to reply, and honestly am having a truly difficult time articulating the point I am trying to convey. We have been left with two social constructs from slavery, white and black. What makes it so frustrating is that neither are monoliths. While there is a systemic disadvantage to one over the other, it is not even or fair or rational. It is a dynamic based on hate and stupidity, and there must be some way to escape it.

        I guess the root of it is the failure of Reconstruction, by Northern Whites, which has left us in a perpetual social and economic system of failure. To be blunt, I don’t think I am smart enough to see a way out of the morass that has resulted.

        Like

      2. Oh my God, but what kind of pressure is that to put on yourself, Matthew? I don’t think one individual could think us out of this mess. And it is a mess. Undeniably. Everything you’re saying about the terrible effects of the black-white binary are right and true. But we can’t skip over the psychological attachment that blacks and whites have to those identities. And we can’t get around the fact that whites use racism as a tool for securing their hegemonic power over the culture, it’s an extremely effective tool, and so they really have no incentive to stop using it. And black people have very little actual power to make them.

        Like

  3. Matthew Mead

    I am worried about the future.

    I don’t have much experience of the black community due to not being black and living in a highly segregated society. I see the dynamic from the white perspective, and though that affords me the benefits of the system, I cant help but see the pain and suffering that has and can result from this toxic culture.

    I think of my grandfather. He was a kind and gentle man who worked hard his whole life. And yet, despite being kind to everyone he met, he would say some extremely racist things. He would watch the news and talk about “them,” how “they” were one way and why couldn’t they just be “better.” He wasn’t some Neo-Nazi, he even ran a part time home improvement business with a Black man in his retirement years; they were good friends. And yet he couldn’t universalize this friendship, it was classic tokenism. He wasn’t hateful, just ignorant.

    There is such pointless hate, and there are certain segments of this society that are purposefully using that hate to maintain power (If there is a just god, then Nixon is shoveling shit in hell). My Grandfather was duped by people who wanted his vote. And yet that vote hurt many, many people.

    White people would lose nothing by not oppressing black people. In a healthy society, one persons success spills over to others. How many ‘Bill Gates’ in Oakland never were able to contribute to humanity because of systemic poverty and dispossession in the 80’s?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s