Can America save democracy?

 Can we save our democracy?

 

The state of Nebraska has a unicameral legislature. It has been thus since 1937. By all accounts I have heard, they love this system. It is very efficient and economical. Are the other 49 states missing out on the opportunity to solve a lot of electoral and governance problems by not considering this electoral method?

 

In case you may have forgotten what is unique about a unicameral legislative body, it means there are no political parties. It is not a “one party” system. There simply are no parties. There is only a body of senators who are unaffiliated with any political organization. The people of the state choose the best person without having to contend with what party they are associated with. 

 

In the case of Nebraska, only federal office holders declare a party affiliation, in which case they tend to be members of one of the two dominant national parties. But Nebraska has been a model for a very long time that proves a “no party” governing system works very efficiently.

 

I am opening this conversation with the Nebraska example because I want to question the merit of the continuation of our train wreck of a national two-party system. Some of our nation’s founders were worried about the possibility of America falling into such a trap, but their concerns were not adequate warnings. It is not a radical statement to say the present-day system is threatening the survival and veracity of American democracy. We have been living with the damage that loyalty to party instead of country and state has been causing for many decades now. Is it too far reaching to predict that we may be approaching a pivotal point where the dominant two-party system and democracy can no longer co-exist? Let’s think about this.

 

There is a movement in America trying to gain momentum right now to change the voting method from a plurality platform with primaries and general elections, to a ranked choice voting (RCV) system. The state of Maine installed this election platform only to have their state legislature try to kill it. But they were not successful in entirely ending it and localities around the state have continued to use this platform. Currently, there is an initiative underway to switch the state of Massachusetts to the RCV platform. Work is underway in Missouri and Kansas as I write this to build interest in RCV as well.

 

Is RCV a solution, or at least a step in the direction to evolving away from the predominant two-party system by ending the plurality election platform? I believe it very well could be so. Perhaps the best chance to retire the two-party system is to zig zag our way out of it by installing an alternative voting platform that reduces the ability of major political parties to control the system. The best way to move toward this option may be to start with local municipal offices, then add county and ultimately state offices. This would accustom the voting population to the merits and effectiveness of RCV. 

 

Another platform option is the non-partisan blanket primary, also known as the jungle primary. Jungle primaries aggregate every candidate regardless of party affiliation into a single primary grouping. This method results in deciding the winner for the contested office with a single election event eliminating multiple cycles to determine which party controls the office. Both ranked choice voting and jungle primaries save a lot of expense and complication. Holding elections is costly, and unnecessarily so.

 

Democracy is clearly being revealed today as a very fragile governing model that can be compromised and corrupted much easier than we like to believe. It is being seriously threatened presently because the current POTUS is chipping away at its tenets in order to retain office against the will of the people. Democracy unprotected and undefended cannot survive on its own. This fact can perhaps be better understood by realizing that democracy is not a natural order. Most governing and leadership managed institutions, franchises and organizations do not use a democratic system. Families are not democratic in nature. Neither are business organizations, churches, and the military. They would struggle to function and achieve their mission effectively if they were democratic in the way we claim to want for governance.

 

At this time in our national history, the Democratic and Republican parties are actually institutions. Both parties attempt to act and operate like franchises. But they do not epitomize the traits of true franchises. Organizations that start out to be service providers focus on reaching out to those they want to serve and help. Most of their energy is outward. As these organizations grow and mature, their focus increasingly turns inward. That may not be their intention, but it is a difficult tendency to resist and they nearly always fail to avoid it. By turning inward, they become focused on self-preservation, access to and retention of power, elimination of competition and resistance of any kind. This is a clear description of what both major political parties in America have become. And that has resulted in their corruption and inability to truly serve the American people. That mission now amounts to little more than lip service during election cycles to retain their power.

 

Citizens United licensed elected officials to conduct auctions for their favors and services to the highest special interest bidder. There is not even a pretense to the contrary at this time. Models such as unicameral government, ranked choice voting, and non-partisan blanket primaries are processes that would begin to dissolve the power and control of special interests that currently enjoy ownership of our governing methods. If we are truly committed to saving democracy, we would do well to consider these electoral alternatives as a means to put us back on course. Else, we are headed toward an autocratic system that is certain to lead to unabashed fascism.