American democracy is just that – its own version of democracy. This became clear when thinking about the Senate and the Electoral College. The basic definition of democracy is a ‘form of government by the entire (eligible) population typically through elected representatives.’ In this country, we often associate this notion with a concept of “one person-one vote.” Such is not always the case in America. American democracy is a combination of rule by the people, rule by elites, and rule by the states, which distorts the one-vote principle.
Consider the Presidential election. As shown in 2016, a President can be elected without winning a majority of the popular vote. That is because states elect Presidents, not one-vote-people. Each state has Presidential Electors numbering the sum of its representatives and senators (DC has none of the latter but still has 3 Electors). Except for Maine and Nebraska, all of a state’s Electors vote for the candidate who wins that state’s popular vote (the two exceptions do it by congressional districts). That is called “winner takes all.” However, the Electoral College does not represent the people proportionately to their “one-vote.” House seats are fairly representative of population but Senate seats are not, which results in Electoral College imbalance. House seats represent from 570,000 people (Wyoming) to 995,000 (Montana). But Senate seats represent from 285,000 people (Wyoming) to 19,000,000 (California). The resulting Electoral College imbalance ranges from 190,000 people per Elector in Wyoming to 680,000 in California – a factor of 3.6. This means that California with 12% of the US population has only 10% of the Electoral College, while a small state like Vermont with 0.2% of the population has 0.5% of the Electoral College. Not quite a one-to-one vote. Close enough, you say? Perhaps not always, depending on the swing state situation. Also, is it acceptable to our notion of democracy to have people elected by less than a majority vote?
Next consider the Senate. “One-vote” does apply to Senate elections as well as to Senate decisions. Sounds very democratic until you consider how Senate votes compare to the population. Each Senate vote represents a varying number of people from 300,000 (Wyoming) to 19,000,000 (California). This means that a Supreme Court judge confirmed by a vote of 51 Senators can actually represent as little as 18% of the population.
The reasons for these variations from pure democracy were deliberate. The Constitutional Convention hotly debated election/legislation designs in the context of arguments about slavery, small vs large state issues, and fear of mob rule. As in England, America’s Founders generally believed that in many cases rule by elites (e.g., the Senate) would save the mob from itself.
The many arguments for and against this American system of democracy used to be mainly about optimal governance, but now the arguments can be viciously political. Now, even if an optimal improvement became obvious, current vested interests and political venom are unlikely to allow change. In a country where Congress no longer seems able to legislate and elections are becoming flawed for so many new reasons, what does this steadfast adherence to a 200 year old plan mean for our future?