“Ancient Athenians used a kleroterion, a stone slab with a grid of slots, to select jurors from among volunteers in such a way that all of the population’s 10 tribes were equally represented. A lottery system enabled the jurors to be randomly chosen on the morning of the trial, minimizing chances of bribery.” ¹
The earliest democracy consulted by our founding fathers was that of Athens in ancient Greece. Of course, they also referenced the social philosophies of the Enlightenment. But they made no reference to the Athenian kleroterion and the problem it tried to resolve—a problem that still haunts our democracy today. How can a democracy assure descriptive representation of its citizens, inclusive of all classes, age groups, gender, race, and individual differences—like the average folk we encounter every day? In Ms. Procaccia’s article quoted above, for example, she explains that a descriptive representation in any assembly would necessarily include an equal number of men and women. But, as she illustrates, “the average proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments worldwide was 26 percent in 2021—a marked increase from 12 percent in 1997 but still far from gender balance.” And she was just referencing one descriptive distinction that can unfortunately disassociate democratic governance from its plebiscite. Of course, there are many other discrepancies in democratic representation that may include race, national origin, class, fame, and wealth besides gender. Although everybody can vote, only a few govern. But those few too often favor interests other than their diverse electorate’s. Why is that fact demonstrably true, while being equally unfair to voters in any democracy so defined? Well, this distortion of democracy can be explained.
In just a few days, the vote count in America’s mid-term elections will be determined and reported. And we will know how well the results will reflect the voting public. Although a large majority of Americans are registered as Democrats, the Republican Party far exceeds their rival in campaign funding—that is, by billions of dollars. Obviously, Republicans have a wealthier donor base. While both Parties have and will emphasize voter turnout, the Party that can afford more advertisements and fund more campaign workers has an advantage. So, money is a significant advantage in tilting the scale in turnout and, as a result, in election outcomes. Since July of 2015, this blog has repeatedly raised the issue of replacing private campaign funding with public funding. The problem is not just with wealthy donors having more influence on government policy—which is unfair in any democracy—but with the quasi-criminal influence of “dark” money. The latter includes campaign donations from foreign countries that seek profits from American investments and/or influence over our foreign policies. How can a true democracy of the people survive where elections are tilted in favor of those privileged by wealth or influence? The answer is obvious and partly explains this distortion of democracy.
Another anomaly in America’s electoral system is the Electoral College’s reflection of the majority vote. Since voting majorities are calculated by State defined Districts, rather than the overall vote count by State, it is possible to form Districts that favor one Party over another—a process termed gerrymandering. For example, in Wisconsin 44% of the voters can elect a Federal Senator of the Republican Party even though 56% of the electorate voted for a Democrat. This anomaly is the result of years of Republican maneuvering and redistricting at the State level (reference “Majority Pejoraty”). In the past, both Parties have been guilty of gerrymandering. But the Republicans have honed this devious advantage—even to the point of manipulating the ten-year census to minimize the vote count in Democratic precincts. And this gerrymandering has been extended to many mid-western and southern States and explains how Donald Trump won the Electoral College vote in 2016 while losing the popular vote by more than three million votes. How is it possible that an immensely unpopular President—who lost his incumbency by more than seven million votes, the largest vote differential in American history—could have been initially elected by a minority of voters? Given the success of gerrymandering, the answer is obvious and further explains this distortion of our democracy.
When Europeans discovered and eventually colonized the American continent, the initial settlers where organized into colonies. But these colonies gradually became quasi-independent city-states and demanded the same individual freedoms guaranteed to British citizens. But, in order to attain those freedoms, our founding fathers recognized the need to unify under one banner and, if necessary, fight for those freedoms. John Adams was the chief organizer of the American rebellion; George Washington became the leader of our revolutionary army; James Madison helped define the structure of this newly proposed democratic republic; Benjamin Franklin was the consensus builder at America’s Constitutional Convention; Alexander Hamilton became its chief interpreter/defender; and Thomas Jefferson had already defined the very basis for American independence when he proclaimed, “all men are created equal” and later demanded the first ten Amendments be added to the newly ratified Constitution. Those ten Amendments captured the same Bill of Rights that every Brit had by virtue of birth, that Jefferson thereby demanded, and that he justified in his Declaration of Independence. Those were the same rights and individual freedoms that Washington recognized could only be preserved by our unity. And they inspired what I have called Washington’s prime principle, “if we love our freedom then we must preserve our unity.” And those words are also evocative of our current President’s oft-repeated phrase, “there is nothing we cannot do if we do it together, (for) we are the United States of America.”
Given these American birthrights bequeathed us by our founding fathers and extended over a 235-year period to include women, Blacks, immigrants, and LGBTQ, how is it possible that we now seem poised to deny the very principles that founded our nation? Gangs of white supremacists, anti-abortionists, and various hate groups now dictate policies adverse to our founding principles. Our legislators include deniers of a fair and democratically constituted election. Our Supreme Court Justices boldly invalidate a personal freedom their predecessors defined as Constitutionally guaranteed while threatening to amend other Court precedents affecting individual rights and freedom. And, it would seem, these threats to our democracy all emanate from one man whom most Americans rejected as their President twice. But he has gained tribal authority over one political Party that has manipulated its minority into an electoral, if not a voting, majority and has packed the Supreme Court with subversive ideologs. Yes, I know, the terms “subversive ideologs” is outrageous and offensive. But how does one characterize Justices who reverse legal guarantees of fair State elections and the individual freedom every woman should have over her own body as a personal birthright guaranteed by the 9th and 14th Amendments? Of course, the man referenced here is the criminally discredited, twice impeached former President Trump. And the Party he now controls is the current version of the Republican Party which bears no resemblance to Ronald Reagan, its most memorable President of more than three decades ago. Taken together, Trump and his Party have pulled together the forces of money and corruption to distort and destroy American democracy. The only remaining question is whether they will be successful?
Election politics can be confusing. The issue of democracy, for instance, is buried under many mis-directions. The Republicans divert our attention from their Supreme Court appointments, specifically, judges who testify in support of the Roe v. Wade decision, then defy their own testimony by ruling against it (reference “The Supreme Court: A Bulwark of Liberty”). They blame the current President for inflation, while ignoring Trump’s failures to contain COVID and to support Ukraine’s defense against a Russian invasion. The results of these failures were not only extensive loss of lives in America and Ukraine, but supply-line failures and an escalation of Russia’s war against Ukraine. The latter resulted in a curtailment of Russia’s gas and oil supply to the world economy which, together with the impact of COVID, has resulted in a global inflation. The current Administration has fixed the supply-line issue and has done what the Trump Administration refused to do, which is to fund and administer a nationwide program to reduce the impact of the pandemic, return people to work, reopen schools, and save lives. And, of course, America now leads the world in support of Ukraine. The Republicans also fault the Democrats for the increase of crime in America. But they refuse to ban military style weapons that terrorize and greatly increase the death toll resulting from criminal violence. Moreover, the nine worst States in crimes per capita are all governed by Republicans. These campaign gambits are examples of that age-old political game of misdirection, that is, the attempt to divert the electorate from reality. And that ill-intended attempt is a further distortion of our democracy.
In Ariel Procaccia’s referenced article, she describes how a 1983 abortion ban in the Irish Constitution was overturned in 2016. The Irish Parliament “convened a citizens’ assembly, whose 99 members were chosen at random.” ¹ The process of selection assured representation across a wide spectrum of age, gender, and geography—much like the Athenian lottery used in conjunction with their kleroterion. The resultant assembly “heard expert opinions and held extensive discussions regarding the legalization of abortion.” ¹ Its final recommendation would overturn the abortion ban “in all circumstances, subject to limits on the length of pregnancy.” ¹ As a result of this recommendation, the abortion ban was repealed by 66 percent of Ireland’s voters. The citizen assembly was successful because it represented “average” people who represented a cross-section of the Irish population AND because they were provided the expert opinion of doctors and scientists and the opportunity to discuss and analyze the data and circumstances affecting abortions. In other words, the Irish abortion ban was lifted as a result of an informed electorate that represented a broad cross-section of the voting community.
How do we Americans overcome the misinformation heralded by well-funded special interests, electoral brinkmanship, and self-invested politicians who value their hold on office over public service? We can begin by learning the lesson the Irish represented. America began in the colonies where the rights of citizens and the purpose of government was discussed at the kitchen table, in lecture halls, the workplace, and pubs. Although we live in the “information age,” the sources of political information are polluted by self-serving protagonists, ridiculous conspiracy theories, bold lies, and inflamed rhetoric designed to influence behavior rather than reasoned judgment. The task of becoming self-informed has become a selective task of choosing sources. What can help penetrate this cacophony is grounding in America’s formative culture—that is, our history, social studies, art, music, and foundational ideals. The latter is well represented not only in our founding documents but in the words and actions of our founding fathers, as summarily reverenced above. How is it possible for the most formative democracy in human history to limit, or even eliminate, civics classes in its public school system? How can our democracy survive where political campaigns are based on winning rather than the general welfare of the voting public?
Generally, I would never recommend voting along party-lines. But the current Republican Party has become a granite block of resistance to any public serving policies. We only know what it is against, namely, Democratic politicians at any level, all policies that serve civic health, education, world peace, climate change mitigation, and any honest debate based on facts. What the Party does support is election of its candidates and its hold on all civic power. Their public platform no longer serves the general welfare, for it does not even exist, neither in writing nor in practice. They have become the Party of Power and Bluster. Yes, I do believe there are Republicans I would normally support, but their funding and support within the Party today is conditional upon their adherence to “talking points” and a political strategy of winning at all costs. The problem on this campaign cycle is that those costs include the demise of our democracy.
_______________________________________________________________
¹ Ariel Procaccia, “A More Perfect Algorithm,” in Scientific American, November 2022 Issue, pp.53-59.
A Footnote:
Putin, in a recent speech he gave on 10-27-2022 stated that “the West is no longer able to dictate its will to humankind but still tries to do it, and the majority of nations no longer want to tolerate it.” In fact, President Biden has done a very effective job of leading a “majority of nations” to not tolerate Putin’s dictates, his unprovoked war on Ukraine or the genocide of its citizens. But America’s ability to influence the world order it largely created after World War II depends upon it remaining a beacon of hope and a model democracy. But the distortion of our democracy outlined in this blog has an unfortunate impact on a peaceful world order. Unless Republicans can wean themselves from Trump’s embrace, his proposals to demolish NATO, to align American foreign policy with Putin, to limit support for Ukraine, and to develop “friendships” with dictators like Kim Jong-un, Erdogan, and Orban will remove America from its status as a beacon of hope for democracies around the world. What prognosis for world peace would then be plausible?