Federalist Phoenix No. 6

On democracy and republicanism

Previously, I explained how democracy is an association using a representative form of rule that rests on the foundational principle of equality. I also described how any democratic association that excludes young children due to their immaturity remains democratic because the exclusion is designed to protect the association from unwise decisions by those same children. Nonetheless, this makes even the most rudimentary, purest form of a democracy representative in practice so long as (if any) additional exclusions are not done arbitrarily, capriciously or with the malicious intent to deprive people of their rights to self-rule. Therefore, and in the negative, any association whether village, town, city, county, state, nation or any other group of people operating under an agreement to associate—a constitution, by-laws, charter—is not a democracy if it:

1)        does not elevate equality to the fore in ruling and being ruled, or

2)        denies people their right to participate in self-rule using arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory criteria such as race, gender, social status, nationality, or religion.

I think now is a good time to put many of the forgoing terms I have used in a more contemporary, traditional context before proceeding. It should be obvious that an association describes any group of people who voluntarily wish to rule or govern themselves. As stated previously, some examples of such associations are towns, counties, or nations. The persons within an association are citizens or the citizenry. The subset of people who are not excluded from governing or choosing those who govern due to age are the electorate or voters. Democracy demands that representatives of the people chosen to govern must be chosen from and by the electorate. It stands to reason that elections (the formal method of choosing) must be conducted in a manner that strives to ensure,

1)        the greatest participation by the electorate,

2)        the security and integrity of the vote, and

3)        the timely reporting of results.

Therefore, it is fundamental to the preservation of a democracy that the government (collective rulers) become and remain actively involved in the election process by enacting laws (rules) that accomplishes the aforesaid three goals. Since democracy is a form of self-rule, it is understood that election outcomes will be determined by popular vote without any diminution of voters’ power through the use of agency or any form of representation other than that described above. My further discourse will use these more contemporary and traditional terms in light of their common usage and with the tacit agreement of readers.

Among other things, republicanism is rooted in the concept of representative as opposed to direct decision-making. Having already explained that democracy is also a form of representative rule, it is necessary to distinguish between the two when comparing democratic and republican principles of decision-making. This includes not only voting but policy decision-making as well.

Adherents of republicanism suggest representative governance is necessary to prevent the rise of a populist demagogue as well as poor decision-making on the part of uninformed voters. It goes without saying that adherents of both democracy and republicanism have a common desire to prevent the rise of a populist demagogue, particularly one who does not share their values. While the principles of democracy do not assert that uninformed voters always make bad decisions, they are applied with the uncertain but hopeful expectation that informed voters make better decisions. It must be concluded then that any democratic government should wish for an informed electorate and do whatever it can, in an unbiased manner, to provide voters with accurate, timely information with which to make the best decisions.

Direct democracy is most often practiced at the local and state levels when voting for candidates or on a referendum. The outcomes of these elections are determined by which candidate receives a majority of the popular vote or if the referendum receives a majority of the affirmative or negative popular votes. Candidates who win a majority of the popular vote become elected to the office for which they ran. A referendum with a majority of affirmative votes is approved, otherwise, it is not approved. Every voter has equal say in the decisions. Every vote counts. The majority of favorable votes determines the outcome. This is the purest, most practical application of democracy in an association. Elections for choosing our members to the U.S. House of Representatives is the only example of using this form of democratic decision-making at the national level. Unfortunately, its use is later purposefully mutated into something far less, as I will show.

The Constitution allows for each state to elect two Senators. Although each state elects two Senators by popular vote, the state’s representation is diluted or concentrated on a per capita basis. However, state’s do not cast votes on policies; Senators do. Therefore, Senators from more populous states have less representative influence than their counterparts from less populous states, assuming the former serves a more diverse electorate. Similarly, the popular vote in each state is calculated to determine if a presidential candidate carries (wins) that state or not. However, the number of electoral votes, calculated as the sum of the number of Representatives and Senators, can either dilute or concentrate a state’s influence over the choice of president. History shows that a few populous states with large numbers of electoral votes may represent less than a majority of the total population of the entire country but can provide enough electoral votes to elect a president. The electoral college is an application of the same republican principle designed to prevent a would-be tyrant from ascending to the as presidency.

A basic principle of a democratic association is that the people themselves circumscribe who belongs within the association. U.S. House of Representative voting districts are not democratically decided. They are chosen and drawn by elected state officials, not the voters. In effect, it is not the voters who are choosing their elected officials but the elected officials choosing their voters. The practice of circumscribing voters (gerrymandering) as belonging to arbitrarily drawn districts with the intention of affecting the political representation in favor of one political party over another is not democracy. It is the result and abuse of political power on a trajectory toward tyranny by the majority. Despite no mention of districts in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled favorably on the use of gerrymandering for political purposes. The Court’s current status as irrelevant and impotent have effectively made the ruling permanent for the foreseeable future.