Too Much Democracy?

A democracy is a political system that engages citizens to vote and elect others to represent them. Commonly, this involves majority rule, so the candidate that receives the most votes is elected.

Democracies were invented by the Greeks who employed this form successfully for over one hundred years during the Golden Age of Athens. The Greek democracy included a citizen’s assembly which held the responsibility for passing laws and electing government officials. The assembly was made up of all Athenian citizens who were present at the assembly meetings. Issues were decided by the vote of the majority of those in attendance.

The obvious limitation of direct voter participation made the Greek model an exception in the ancient world. Greek cities were small and it was not difficult for the people to travel to their town for voting.

Rome invented a different form of government, the Republic, after it exiled its last king. The word republic comes from the Latin res publica – thing of the people. The “thing of the people” was a government where the people had rights and participated in passing new laws and electing officials. The Senate was a holdover from the time of the kings, but the people had no real power at that time. The republic created an assembly; a government body of citizens who could vote on laws and elect magistrates.

Like the Greek democracy, the Roman Republic was an exception in antiquity. Monarchies were the predominant form of government in the world from 2300 BC until the Enlightenment Period, which began in 1650 AD.

When America’s founders were planning our political system, they were influenced by the British Constitution, the political systems of the ancient world, and their own colonial experience. The Articles of Confederation were a failure because they did not include an executive, so the work of the confederation was always hampered by fights between the states that could not be resolved. This experience convinced the framers that a chief magistrate was vital to the success of a new government. They had no use for a king, so they created a system where the chief magistrate was elected.

As the founders thought about what their new government should look like, the realized there was no obvious answer because no one had created a new government in the West for a thousand years. Moreover, the European concept of government had been altered by the Enlightenment, which granted new freedoms for the individual.

In 1786, Madison and others tried to schedule a constitutional convention but there was little enthusiasm for a new government among the states. That all changed after an incident that occurred late that summer, which shook up the colonial governments, and drove them into action. An insurrection, called Shay’s Rebellion, took place in Massachusetts, in August, and lasted until February 1787. A group of farmers, led by Daniel Shays, unhappy with their taxes being raised, put together a small army, blockaded some of the courthouses in Massachusetts, and kept them from operating. With no means of stopping the rebels, the government was paralyzed. James Warren, an official with the state legislature, wrote a letter to John Adams, stating that Massachusetts was in a state of anarchy bordering on civil war. The federal government could not help because it had no army, so Massachusetts organized its militia, augmented it with some mercenaries, and set out to break up the rebellion.

After several skirmishes, where a few were killed, the insurrection finally ended on February 27, 1787, when the remaining rebel force was broken up. Four thousand of the rebels signed confessions that they participated in the rebellion, a few hundred were put on trial, and two were hanged.

Shay’s Rebellion shook the founders to their core. What would prevent revolts like this from happening throughout the colonies? Would the American confederation always be one step away from anarchy?

The states now realized that a Constitutional Conversation was a critical step in building a political system that would prevent anarchy. The idea of continuing on with a distributed system, with power held by the states, had suddenly vanished. It was now clear that a strong federal government was needed to balance uncivil behavior by the people. The question was, “How could that balance be created and maintained?”

The founders could read and write in Greek and Latin, and learned about the ancient political systems as a part of their classical education. In applying that knowledge, they quickly rejected the Greek Democracy as an unworkable model. Because of the vast expanse of the American territory, it was impractical to have the people come to the capitol to vote. They settled on the Roman Republic as the best model for the new American government. It would have three branches: A Senate of the most experienced statesmen, an assembly (House of Representatives) representing the people, and a chief magistrate, serving as the executive. In the Roman Republic, there were two chief magistrates, called consuls. They had veto power over each other and acted together to administer the state.

The Constitutional Congress began with a debate about the structure of the legislative branch; who would elect the Senators and Congressmen and how they would be elected. Some wanted the Senators and Congressmen elected by the people, but that was vetoed. Some wanted an equal number of Senators and representatives from each state, but that idea was also vetoed. The final design set up a Senate with two elected from each state, and a Congress with proportional representation by population, elected by the people. Only citizens who owned land could vote.

The debate about the executive branch was about term of office and method of election. Many of the delegates wanted a single seven-year term for the president. Agreement was eventually reached on a four-year term with no term limit. The method of choosing the president would be an Electoral College, consisting of officials from each state, who were elected by the voters of each state.

This new government came into being as a republic of republics, as Madison called it. Each state was a republic, and the federal government was a republic designed to deal with issues that went beyond the capability of the states, such as treaties with foreign nations.

The first great political battles in our country were fought between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson. The Federalists, who were led by Alexander Hamilton, believed in a strong centralized government as necessary to keep order. Jefferson’s group, envisaged a de-centralized federal government were power concentrated in the hands of the states, and the wealthy landholders within them. The election of Jefferson in 1800, marked the end of Federalist philosophy and eventual extinction of that party.

During the Jefferson period and after there was increasing pressure to make America more democratic. The requirement for land ownership was gradually relaxed until 1856, when all white men were permitted to vote. Interestingly, women could vote in some states in the early years, if they owned property, but that ended in 1807.

The final voting roadblocks were torn down when African-Americans received the right to vote in 1870, and women were granted suffrage in 1920.

The other important step toward more democracy occurred with the passage of the 17^th amendment in 1913, which made senators electable by the people rather than being chosen by the state legislatures.

The argument that generated the title for this article, Too Much Democracy, has existed since the writing of the Constitution. The Enlightenment view of government, albeit biased, was that educated people should serve in government because they are the best trained to solve the problems of society. In addition, voting should be limited to persons with a stake in what the government does; that is property holders. Property owners care about what happens to their taxes, so they will pay attention to the platform of those who are running. It’s a simple idea, but it goes back to the Roman Republic.

Hamilton, Madison, and many other founders believed in this argument. The risk of having everyone vote is the case of voters who are influenced by others and not objective. Shays Rebellion made Madison see the influence of bad actors. If someone bribes voters to vote a certain way, you have mob rule, and not best candidate selection. Mob-based elections, eventually lead to tyranny, because those who have the most power and money can win. That is not to say all the votes in the early days in the country were good ones, but the theory suggests that having stakeholders increases the odds of selecting a good candidate.

How has the modern world, changed this theory? Perhaps the property ownership argument is no longer relevant with the creation of income taxes, which affect everyone who works. That should help keep them interested in the direction of the government.

Today we have a convergence of expanding voting rights and increased risk of bad voting. This is not a racial, gender, or party issue. If someone gets a ride to a polling place, receives $ 10, and is told how to vote, what value does that vote have? It contributes nothing to the selection of the best candidate. There is a tradition of union voters being given ballots marking the candidates to vote for. Great for electing pro-union candidates; bad for electing the best candidate for all.

It takes time to read about the candidates and issues, in order to form an opinion of what/who to vote for. Most Americans don’t take the time. Proof of that is the impact of attack ads on voters. If you spend enough money on ads, bending the truth, you can win. Look at the case of Mike Bloomberg, who got himself up to 15% popularity in the Democratic Primary without appearing in public. His ads created his persona.

The Democrats are always fighting to expand voting to excluded groups, like convicted felons. Obviously, they believe expanded voting rights will help them. Republicans tend to resist these changes because they don’t want to see new Democrat voters.

The lack of voter knowledge and its impact on elections is questionable now, because both parties seek election by the mob. There’s no other way to win. The notion of a governing class of educated, moral individuals dedicated to what is best for the country is dead. It’s now a popularity contest, driven by marketing and backed by billionaires. The mob is at the top.