Editorial: Representative Democracy, pt. 1
By Scott Walker, M.D.
Dear Neighbors,
We are a democracy because most of us believe that we are all created equal, and all citizens are entitled to one vote.
We are a representative democracy, rather than a direct democracy, because individual citizens do not vote on, for example, a defense appropriations bill. Instead, we use the democratic principle of “majority rules” to elect representatives, who in turn use democratic principles of debate to vote on policy, like that defense appropriations bill.
Two trends have weakened our representative democracy and, like weakened trestles on a bridge, they must be repaired and not ignored.
The first trend is the increasing separation between a random voter and that person’s representative to Congress. Of the roughly 700,000 residents of a Congressional District, how many see their Representative more than once a year? For more than five minutes? It wasn’t always this way. The Constitution originally set the size of a Congressional District at 37,000 people. Had this ratio been maintained, we would have approximately 800 house members today, and Green County would be the size of one District.
The logistics of maintaining order and decorum amongst a group of 800 house members, or anything larger than today’s body, was seen as impractical, and the law was changed. The practice now is to divide the population of the 50 States among 435 House members, without regard to how that might affect the relationship between the governing and the governed. Is one elected official for 700,000 residents truly representative?
The second change that inspired a trend was the “Citizens United” decision at the U.S. Supreme Court, holding that money equals speech for political purposes. The decision started a rapid increase in the amount of “dark money” entering politics. Dark money comes from legally incorporated organizations, who don’t have to disclose the sources of their income, giving money to political action committees (PACs) to campaign for or contribute much more money to a Member of Congress than a typical constituent ever could. The dark money going into PACs and campaigns could be Russian, or Chinese, or drug money; we may never know, and that’s why it’s called “dark money.”
Politics is always susceptible to the influence of tainted money. On the one hand, there will be representatives who are simply in agreement with a large donor organization, and their committed voting behavior is being rewarded, not bought in advance.
On the other hand, there will be organizations created specifically to channel large amounts of money, of questionable origin, from one person or group to one specific elected official or caucus, without the source being known; that money of course could be intended to affect future behavior, like votes. Technically, it is illegal for foreign countries or drug dealers to contribute to campaigns in America; realistically, how could we know? Likewise, it is illegal to provide money or anything of value in exchange for a vote, but again how could we know?
A few Representatives are leading the way by not accepting PAC money. Their tenure in Congress has been fragile.
How can we repair these two damaged trestles? To strengthen the first trestle, we have to increase the interaction between the elected and those they represent. To repair the second trestle, we need to realize that our political speech should be more fairly apportioned. How do we apportion “political speech,” without treading on “free speech?” Here’s a hint: it’s being done. More soon!
Part one of a three-part series about democracy.
