Democracy in America?

1. Economic Inequality Fuels Political Dysfunction

When a few individuals hold enormous amounts of wealth, political power tends to be highly concentrated, too.

Historical pattern. American history reveals a stark correlation: when economic inequality rises, democracy suffers, and when citizens are more equal, democracy tends to flourish. This pattern was evident in the late nineteenth-century Gilded Age, where extreme wealth concentration undermined democratic principles, much as it does today. The authors argue that the current extreme economic inequality is a primary cause of America's democratic decline.

Today's explosion. Since the 1970s, the U.S. has seen an "explosion" of income inequality, with median hourly wages stagnating while the wealthiest 1% have seen their incomes and wealth soar. This divergence is not due to a lack of worker effort or skill, but rather to factors like labor-saving technology and global wage competition. This economic disparity has created a widening political gap, as wealth translates directly into political power.

Vicious cycle. Public policy choices have significantly contributed to this inequality, yet the very economic inequality that most Americans want to ameliorate through democratic politics brings with it highly unequal political resources that undermine democracy. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle where economic inequality begets political inequality, making it harder to address the root economic issues.

2. Average Citizens Have Little Policy Influence

After interest groups and affluent citizens are taken into account, it becomes clear that average citizens exert little or no influence on federal government policy.

Alarming finding. The authors' extensive research, analyzing nearly 1,800 proposed policy changes over two decades, reveals a disturbing truth: the policy preferences of average Americans have virtually no discernible impact on federal government policy. Whether 20% or 80% of average citizens favor a policy change, it occurs only about one-third of the time.

Democracy by coincidence. While public opinion and policy often move together, this is largely a "democracy by coincidence." Average citizens frequently get what they want not because their voices are heard, but because their preferences align with those of affluent citizens who do have substantial influence. This is a precarious form of democracy, vulnerable to shifts in elite opinion.

Policies thwarted. Even when overwhelming majorities of Americans desire specific policy changes—such as addressing climate change, gun violence, or improving public schools—these initiatives are often thwarted. The U.S. political system exhibits a strong bias against change, meaning that even highly popular policies fail to pass more than half the time.

3. Wealthy Elites and Corporations Dominate Policy

Affluent Americans have substantial influence, far more than middle-income citizens do.

Disproportionate power. In stark contrast to average citizens, affluent Americans (the top 20% of income earners) wield significant influence over policy outcomes. This influence is likely concentrated among the "truly wealthy"—multimillionaires and billionaires—who can invest vast sums in politics. Their preferences significantly affect policy, especially in preventing changes they oppose.

Money floods elections. U.S. elections are increasingly expensive, with billions spent each cycle. A tiny fraction of the wealthiest Americans provides a disproportionately large share of campaign funds. For example, in 2012, just 0.01% of the voting-age population contributed over 40% of all federal election spending. This reliance on private money makes politicians dependent on wealthy donors.

Corporate lobbying. Beyond individual wealth, corporations and business associations dominate the lobbying landscape, outspending public interest groups by huge margins. They engage in "low-visibility lobbying" in congressional committees and regulatory agencies, often securing narrow, self-interested benefits like tax breaks or subsidies that would be unpopular if widely known.

4. Money Corrupts the Democratic Process

The system of private financing of elections has the effect of boosting candidates whose positions appeal to the wealthy.

Systemic corruption. The authors argue that both major parties are "corrupted" by their reliance on wealthy contributors, not through illegal bribery, but through a systemic pattern of undue influence. Politicians spend enormous time fundraising, leading to a dependence on donors that shapes their priorities and policy stances. This dependence pulls officials away from serving the public's business.

Shaping candidate selection. Private money profoundly affects who can even run for office and what policies they advocate. The need to raise large sums acts as a filter, screening out candidates whose views fundamentally diverge from those of wealthy donors. This "money primary" gives a small, unelected group significant control over the electoral choices available to voters.

Supreme Court's role. The Supreme Court's narrow interpretation of corruption, particularly in cases like Citizens United, has exacerbated this problem. By equating money with "speech" and limiting regulations on political spending, the Court has undermined the principle of political equality, effectively moving the U.S. towards "one dollar, one vote."

5. Polarized Parties and Institutional Gridlock Thwart the Public Will

The biggest single cause of gridlock in recent years has been sharp, uncompromising conflict between the Republican and Democratic parties, during periods when different parties controlled different institutions of the federal government.

Deadlock by design. The U.S. political system, with its multiple veto points and separation of powers, was designed with checks and balances to prevent hasty action. However, this design, combined with increasingly polarized parties and divided government, now frequently leads to gridlock and inaction on pressing national problems. Congressional productivity has declined significantly since the mid-20th century.

Partisan chasm. Republican and Democratic officials are more deeply divided on policy than at any time in over a century, with little to no ideological overlap. This polarization has eroded bipartisanship and compromise, making it politically dangerous for members of Congress to work across the aisle due to fears of primary challenges from their party's extremist base.

Sources of polarization:

• Extreme activists and donors: They exert outsized influence in low-turnout primary elections, pushing candidates to more extreme ideological positions.
• One-party districts: Gerrymandering and residential segregation create "safe" districts where nominees, even if unrepresentative of constituents, are almost guaranteed to win.
• Economic and social changes: Rising inequality, globalization, and demographic shifts have fueled divergent interests and cultural unease, further separating the parties.

6. Reforms Must Curb Money's Power in Elections and Lobbying

In our judgment, the top priority among political reforms is to reduce or eliminate the power of private money in American politics.

Reversing Supreme Court decisions. The most significant barrier to curbing money's influence is the Supreme Court's interpretation of campaign finance as protected "speech." A top priority is to reverse these decisions, either through a change in Court personnel or a constitutional amendment, to allow for strict regulation of political spending. Legal scholars are developing arguments to re-establish political equality as a constitutional value.

Public financing of elections. To truly level the playing field, private money should be eliminated from elections and replaced with public funding. Voluntary systems, like Connecticut's Clean Election law, demonstrate that public funding can reduce reliance on big donors and increase candidate responsiveness to ordinary citizens.

Empowering small donors. Reforms like "Democracy Vouchers," which give every citizen a fixed amount (e.g., $50) to donate to candidates, could equalize financial influence. Seattle's adoption of a voucher system for municipal elections is a promising model. Additionally, full disclosure of all political spending, especially "dark money" from undisclosed sources, is crucial for accountability.

7. Empowering All Citizens is Essential for True Democracy

If we want government to respond to average citizens, we need to ensure that elections accurately reflect the will of those citizens.

Unrepresentative electorate. The U.S. stands out among democracies for its low voter turnout and the unrepresentative nature of its electorate. Voters tend to be more affluent, older, and whiter than the general population, leading to a biased "voice of the people" in elections. This bias means that even if officials listen to voters, they may not be listening to all citizens equally.

Removing voting barriers. The current system discourages participation through unnecessary barriers like personal registration requirements, inconvenient Election Day scheduling, and restrictive voter ID laws. Reforms to facilitate voting include:

• Universal, government-administered voter registration.
• Election Day holidays or universal absentee voting.
• More convenient polling places and longer hours.
• Ending felon disenfranchisement.

Enhancing representativeness. While increasing turnout is good, ensuring the electorate is representative is paramount. Reforms like automatic voter registration, as seen in Oregon, significantly boost registration rates and reduce socioeconomic biases in turnout. This ensures that the collective voice heard by politicians more accurately reflects the diverse needs and preferences of all Americans.

8. Institutional Reforms Can Break Gridlock and Enhance Representation

The most fundamental, hardest-to-reform sources of gridlock involve disharmonies among institutions that result from various undemocratic arrangements concerning how our elections are organized, our political parties are constituted, and our institutions relate to the citizenry as a whole.

Unclogging the Senate. The Senate's "hold" and filibuster rules are major sources of gridlock. The "hold," allowing a single senator to block appointments, should be abolished. The filibuster, which effectively creates a "sixty-vote Senate," should be sharply curtailed by requiring actual, germane debate and making it harder to use. These changes would enable majorities to act without undermining serious deliberation.

Democratizing the House. The House of Representatives, intended as the "people's House," often suffers from one-party dominance, where a "majority of the majority" (potentially a minority of all members) can block popular legislation. Reforms like eliminating "closed rules" and easing "discharge petitions" would restore majority rule, leading to more centrist, bipartisan legislation and less gridlock.

Reforming presidential elections. The Electoral College, which has twice in recent history led to a president winning with fewer popular votes, is undemocratic and a source of institutional disharmony. A promising reform is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Additionally, replacing party-controlled primaries with open, instant-runoff general elections would empower a more representative electorate to choose candidates who appeal to a broader range of citizens.

9. A Broad Social Movement is Needed to Drive Change

We believe that our ultimate goal—a major increase in government’s responsiveness to average citizens while reducing the political power of wealthy individuals and corporate interest groups—can only be attained through a broad, energetic, and persistent social movement.

Lessons from history. Past social movements—like the Populists, Progressives, New Deal movements, and the Civil Rights Movement—demonstrate that significant political and economic reforms are possible, even against entrenched interests. These movements succeeded by:

• Focusing on serious grievances that violated shared values.
• Linking reforms to daily realities (e.g., high drug costs to lobbying).
• Developing concrete reform ideas and publicizing them.
• Mobilizing large numbers of active volunteers and forming diverse alliances.

Strategic alliances. A "social movement for Democracy" must forge alliances across various groups—churches, environmental organizations, labor unions, racial justice groups, and even principled conservatives—who are all negatively impacted by the current dysfunctional system. Recruiting affluent allies, while navigating potential agenda shifts, can provide crucial resources.

Diverse tactics and persistence. Successful movements employ a variety of strategies, from litigation and lobbying to mass demonstrations and working within political parties. Change will not be quick; it requires patience and persistence, with small victories building momentum over time. The movement must also be cautious, ensuring reforms genuinely enhance democracy and are not undermined by unintended consequences.

10. Progress is Possible, Starting Locally

But we also see signs of hopefulness and a willingness to push hard for desperately needed political and economic reforms.

Widespread recognition. There is growing, bipartisan recognition that the U.S. economic system is failing average citizens and that government is implicated. Politicians across the spectrum, from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump, acknowledge that the system is "rigged" against ordinary Americans, creating a fertile ground for reform.

Public demand for change. Americans increasingly believe that political reforms are urgently needed, as evidenced by fervent opposition to Citizens United and the appeal of "outsider" candidates in 2016. This public sentiment, coupled with a willingness to push for change, is a crucial condition for progress.

State and local leadership. Cities and states are leading the way in adopting progressive political reforms, blazing a trail for national change. Examples include:

• Clean election laws: Maine's citizens strengthened their publicly funded election program despite opposition.
• Campaign vouchers: Seattle adopted the first municipal voucher system, empowering every voter.
• Automatic voter registration: Oregon, West Virginia, and Vermont have passed groundbreaking bills.
• Substantive economic reforms: Campaigns for a $15 minimum wage and paid family leave have seen success in various states and cities.

These local successes demonstrate that change is achievable and can inspire broader movements, even when entrenched interests resist fiercely.