Current Events > ITT: An incomprehensive list of things wrong with the just the US's democracy

(+) Yeah! (+)

Before you respond to this post with "WE'RE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY BECAUSE IF YOU HAD A DIRECT DEMOCRACY THE MAJORITY WOULD OPPRESS THE MINORITY", a republic is a representative democracy and representatives are still elected democratically. The majority oppressing the minority still happens in the current system. In many cases, the reverse happens and the minority oppresses the majority. With that said,

• The Electoral College does not reflect the popular vote
• The Electoral College makes peoples' votes count more or less depending on where they live; 1 electoral vote in California represents roughly 720,000 people whereas 1 electoral vote in Wyoming represents roughly 190,000 people, so Wyomingites' votes count almost 4 times as much as Californians' do
• The House of Representatives is locked at 435 seats, which means the same Electoral College inequity in representation is present in the House, although it's nowhere near as egregious
• The House districts are drawn by the state legislature, so the party in power can gerrymander as much as they want as long as the intention is not provably to disenfranchise based on race, resulting in consistent elections where the majority of the population votes for the Democratic Party, but the majority of seats are taken by Republicans, even at the state level
• The Senate is completely undemocratic; California's senators represent about 20 million people each while Wyoming's senators represent less than 300,000 each, and yet their votes have equal power.
• First Past the Post voting makes a system where two parties dominate nearly inevitable and the Spoiler Effect discourages third parties
• As a result of FPTP, despite there being enough people specifically registered as libertarian (which is much less than the total number of people who may vote libertarian) to warrant a seat in Congress by population, the only member of the libertarian party ever to be part of Congress is Justin Amash in this year, because he defected from the Republican Party
• Voter suppression is an extremely prominent issue that disproportionately affects minorities, with some states blatantly targeting minorities. This aside, most states require a photo ID that not all people (notably the elderly) may not have through no fault of their own, and even then, only certain photo IDs apply
• Depending on the state, prisoners (who are disproportionately minorities) may be able to vote, but they may also lose their voting rights while in prison or even after they are released. As a reminder, the US has by far the largest prison population in the world.
• Election days are not state or national holidays and many may choose to work rather than vote, if they even have the choice; absentee ballots are often, but not always available, and may not be granted to you even if you apply for one and have a "legitimate" reason (which in and of itself is also exclusionary) for not voting in person
• United States citizens that live in territories have no representation in Congress, instead electing "observers" that cannot vote, and, DC aside, cannot vote for President. This applies to over 4 million people worldwide, and is particularly egregious in the case of Puerto Rico, which has a population greater than 20 US states (and DC) that do have representation in Congress. US citizens can vote from foreign countries and the entirety of space, but not territories.
• While the maximum cap on individual donations to a candidate's campaign is $2800, PACs and super PACs can receive and spend unlimited funds to run ads for a candidate. They do not have to report who or what their money comes from, nor do they have to report how they spend the money. This often leads to corporations or high-ranking members having an influence on the policy a candidate enacts. It goes without saying that poorer people will contribute less than those that are well-off. Lobbying further compounds this, but it's a whole other can of worms.
• Campaigns are extremely costly and unless the candidate can afford months without income or wasting tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars if they don't win, they're unlikely to win or even attempt to run.
• Depending on the state, the salary of a member of a state legislature may not be enough to cover the costs of living, and so the wealthy are again much more likely to run.
• Public policy does not reflect polling the overwhelming majority of the time; for example the bill that effectively repealed net neutrality polled at 17%. Nearly 60% of American state that the war in Afghanistan (which is 19 years old) is not worth fighting. A Princeton study found that America functions as an oligarchy rather than a democracy.

This does not even touch on the myriad ways the US violates its own constitution, violates international law, is far behind the rest of the developed world, allows racism to flourish, continues enacting deeply unpopular policies, and works in the interest of corporations. I know I'm missing tons of issues just with the democratic process. I wish we lived in a democracy, but as it stands, we don't.

---

Not enough hot chicks running for President

---

Like it or not, the framework of the US gov is a mix of democratic and indirect democratic features. The Federalist Papers makes this pretty obvious. The framers feared the vox populi and its ability to be influence by bad actors. Therefore, some systematic checks exist against purely democratic structures.

See the electoral college and the prior selection of senators through indirect elections. Also consider the US is a federation of states. It is not a unitary system at the foundational level. The senate on face is anti-democratic. But it exists as part of the Great Compromise which is inherently rooted in federalism and the rejection of the unitary state.

We can criticize the efficacy of these structures in modernity, but we have to address the whys of their existance.

---

we're a republic not a democracy

---

furb posted...

We can criticize the efficacy of these structures in modernity, but we have to address the whys of their existance.

Okay, but the country is not set in stone. We (should) have the ability to change it, and we should, unless you don't like democracy.

---

The Republican Party constantly trying to destroy people's rights and lives to help out their billionaire friends/donors

---

Garioshi posted...

a republic is a representative democracy

Which, oddly enough, is an oxymoron.

---

dick pills not covered under medicare

---

Allowing corporations to influence the state was the biggest mistake and one I'm not convinced you can vote your way out of
---

Representation in democratic system exists in many different ways. This is one of my favorites. Pitkin one of the best for approaching this topic. This article is a nice summary.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/political-representation/

this is another good one

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51992836_Democracy_Accountability_and_Representation

---

There are other problems I have with this, and some things I do, at least in part agree with but I'm just going to focus on it.

Garioshi posted...

The House of Representatives is locked at 435 seats, which means the same Electoral College inequity in representation is present in the House, although it's nowhere near as egregious

Alright seriously, I've seen this repeated again and again and it is completely nonsensical and I can't imagine anyone talking about it puts any thought into itself whatsoever.

How does inflating the total amount of people help anything, at all?

The number of representatives is already broken down by the population in each state.

There is nothing that would benefit from having over a thousand people screeching at each other instead of just a few hundred.

furb posted...

Like it or not, the framework of the US gov is a mix of democratic and indirect democratic features. The Federalist Papers makes this pretty obvious. The framers feared the vox populi and its ability to be influence by bad actors. Therefore, some systematic checks exist against purely democratic structures.

See the electoral college and the prior selection of senators through indirect elections. Also consider the US is a federation of states. It is not a unitary system at the foundational level. The senate on face is anti-democratic. But it exists as part of the Great Compromise which is inherently rooted in federalism and the rejection of the unitary state.

We can criticize the efficacy of these structures in modernity, but we have to address the whys of their existance.

Given whats been happening on social media, twitter the past few years, I'd say they were right to fear.

---

but all dem Mexicans are coming in taking our jobs!

---

One more. Mainly posting the books that helped me understand different forms of representation in democratic systems, and the whys and weaknesses of different approaches.

I highly recommend just reading the books, but still informative if not.

https://adambrown.info/p/notes/lijphart_patterns_of_democracy

I think this one is most relevant to the issues OP raises. Lijhpart argues for consensual democratic systems and less on the models you see in the US and UK.

---

Garioshi posted...

The House of Representatives is locked at 435 seats

There's no constitutional basis for this specific number.
If anything, it's just the logistical and geometric issue of trying to fit ten thousand or so representatives into the house chamber.

On that note, 10000 representatives would make the electoral college issue a bit less silly as well.

The_Ivory_Man posted...

There are other problems I have with this, and some things I do, at least in part agree with but I'm just going to focus on it.

Alright seriously, I've seen this repeated again and again and it is completely nonsensical and I can't imagine anyone talking about it puts any thought into itself whatsoever.

How does inflating the total amount of people help anything, at all?

The number of representatives is already broken down by the population in each state.

There is nothing that would benefit from having over a thousand people screeching at each other instead of just a few hundred.

Wyoming is already overrepersented by having 1 representative. If Wyoming was the baseline, the House would have around 550 seats. That aside, smaller constituencies make your vote matter more wherever you live (and thus candidates have to focus more on pleasing you) and allow candidates not from the 2 major parties a chance to get elected. The UK has roughly a quarter the population of the US and yet it has over 200 more seats, with each seat representing about 100,000 people. If we did that in the US, we'd be looking at about 3,200 seats. 8 times the people, 8 times the number of people a corporation needs to bribe donate to in order to buy the government.

---

Garioshi posted...

The UK has roughly a quarter the population of the US and yet it has over 200 more seats, with each seat representing about 100,000 people. If we did that in the US, we'd be looking at about 3,200 seats.

Article 1 states no more than one representative per 30000 (minimum one), which would be about 10,900.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Article 1 states no more than one representative per 30000 (minimum one), which would be about 10,900.

Fuck it, why not?

---

Garioshi posted...

Fuck it, why not?

I know, right?
That would be pretty awesome, actually.

furb posted...

The Federalist Papers makes this pretty obvious.

the federalist papers supported continuous expansion of the house as population rose [Federalist #10, #57], under the auspices that representatives should be speaking for smaller groups and extend a local voice to the national stage, rather than allowing "ambitious sacrifice of the many to the aggrandizement of the few."

Questionmarktarius posted...

If anything, it's just the logistical and geometric issue of trying to fit ten thousand or so representatives into the house chamber.

we have never been more able to get around that using technology.

Questionmarktarius posted...

On that note, 10000 representatives would make the electoral college issue a bit less silly as well.

we'd still have the problem of first-past-the-post, but at least the 3-vote states would not be able to swing elections anymore.

---

This is what happens when we appeased the confederates they cried about not geting a voice and we gave them way to much

Crono99 posted...

One thing that's important is that the US, in many ways, functions kind of like a united nations of sovereign states rather than as a country. States in the US have a lot more power than regions or provinces generally have in western countries. This is obvious when you look at how you can only appeal decisions from a state supreme court to the US supreme court if it involves a question of federal law - in the rest of the world, the federal supreme court absolutely has the power to overturn a state/provincial supreme court on a matter of purely state/provincial law.

Sure, senators from Wyoming represent much less people than California. But if you go back historically, getting all those states to join the union was a very difficult process and this kind of thing was negotiated.

Fixing all the things "wrong" with democracy in the US like suggested in the OP would be extremely hard because it would go directly against the reasons why many states even agreed to be part of the union in the first place.

And what? Is Wyoming going to secede and become an independent country completely landlocked by the US? Independence movements are simply not popular and the original 13 colonies ain't going anywhere. The Three Fifths rule was a compromise to get Southern states to join the US, but I don't see you talking about how undermining it would go against the reason the states joined in the first place.

---

I like how people are citing history to explain away the first three bullet points and completely ignoring the rest.

---

FarFromFields posted...

I like how people are citing history to explain away the first three bullet points and completely ignoring the rest.

A ten-thousand seat House would alleviate most of those, by itself.

FarFromFields posted...

I like how people are citing history to explain away the first three bullet points and completely ignoring the rest.

i am citing history to explain why the first three are important to resolve

Questionmarktarius posted...

A ten-thousand seat House would alleviate most of those, by itself.

+ it's not like the current house meets the social distancing we'd need for it to be safe to meet in person

++ campaigning for ~3000 people makes it pretty hard for a state government to gerrymander anything

+++ it doesn't cost ten million dollars to campaign to 3000 people

everything about the capping of our representative count drives the problems with legislative branch priorities. and what we have is exactly what madison warned against--serving donors at the cost of the people because they need money for re-election more than they need popularity, even among their own voters.

---

Bump

---

The_Ivory_Man posted...

The number of representatives is already broken down by the population in each state.

The cap means that those totals can't be proportionate. California has about 75 times Wyoming's population, but only 53 times its representation.
---

furb posted...

Like it or not, the framework of the US gov is a mix of democratic and indirect democratic features. The Federalist Papers makes this pretty obvious. The framers feared the vox populi and its ability to be influence by bad actors. Therefore, some systematic checks exist against purely democratic structures.

See the electoral college and the prior selection of senators through indirect elections. Also consider the US is a federation of states. It is not a unitary system at the foundational level. The senate on face is anti-democratic. But it exists as part of the Great Compromise which is inherently rooted in federalism and the rejection of the unitary state.

We can criticize the efficacy of these structures in modernity, but we have to address the whys of their existance.

I dont think Madison predicted the modern Republican party or its voters.

---

bump

---

US system is garbage


---