In the US Democracy Is Increasingly a Spectator Sport

Most of us have seen the slogan “democracy is not a spectator sport” on t-shirts and more frequently bumper stickers.This is meant as a reminder that in a democracy all of us should participate, primarily by voting, and that is the way we can make a difference. There is a great deal of intuitive appeal to this slogan. It is difficult to argue with the notion that everybody should vote or that participation is an important part of democracy.

Unfortunately, in the US democracy is increasingly a spectator sport. The primary reason for this is not just that voter turnout is lower in the US than in many other democracies. Rather, the American political system turns most voters into spectators in large part due to our unusual electoral system. Many Americans live in places where elections for the House or Representatives, the Senate, statewide offices and state legislatures are not competitive.

The current electoral fight for control of congress demonstrates this dynamic. The coverage of the US senate elections this cycle has focused on the states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina and New Hampshire. Those are the states where elections for the senate are expected to be close, but there are 26 other state that are having elections for the senate this year. New York, California and Florida, states that together are home to almost one in four Americans are also having senate elections, but nobody is paying any attention because Senators Schumer, Padilla and Rubio are expected to be reelected easily. A similar dynamic exists in the House of Representatives where there are about 50-60 seats that are expected to be competitive, but at least 350 seats where one or the other of the two major parties will win easily. 

One result of this is that while the US remains a deeply divided country, it is not, from an electoral perspective, experienced that way by most Americans. For millions of Americans, Democrat and Republican, left or right, shortly before a midterm election all we can do is vote in our own uncompetitive elections, cheer on our party from the sidelines and, if we are fortunate enough to have some extra money, contribute to our party’s candidates in other states. This feels a lot like a spectator sport. It’s like going to a baseball game. We watch, we cheer and if we have a bit of money, we can get better seats, but the Yankees aren’t calling on me to pinch hit. However, given how poorly they played in the playoffs, that might not have been such a bad idea.

Among the causes for this situation is the American people sorting themselves by party, ideology and geography, gerrymandering that limits the number of competitive districts and many American states becoming dominated by one of the other parties. However, lack of competitive elections is only one of the problems that grows out of this. A bigger problem for American democracy is that this paucity of competitive elections means that in a very meaningful way, for most people most of the time, politics are not participatory. This is extremely disempowering and ultimately leads people to seek solutions elsewhere. In the summer of 2022, the Supreme Court overturned the Roe v. Wade decision, leading several states to almost immediately pass laws taking away the right to reproductive freedom. Several more states are likely to follow. Activists, furious about this decision, took to the streets in places like New York and San Francisco, heavily Democratic cities in states which will continue, and even strengthen, their commitment to allow women to make their own decisions about their bodies.

In the aftermath of those events, progressives were once again told how important it is to vote because of issues like abortion rights. Similarly, earnest voices are telling us that to protect American democracy and stop election deniers from gaining more power, it is imperative that we vote. However, many, perhaps most, progressives live in places where their votes don’t matter because elections are not competitive. In that context, lectures about the importance of voting sound like a weak but cruel joke.

As the crisis of democracy in the US persists, relegating most American voters to the role of spectators, cheering for their party in faraway states and occasionally sending money to candidates in places they may never have even visited, only makes things worse. There is no doubt that the coming midterms will have a major impact on country’s future, but if we want to strengthen democracy and give more voters the feeling of having a meaningful role in elections, we need to explore reforms to our democracy like multi-member seats, party list systems and the like. This would directly benefit any one party, but at crucial moment in American history it would return millions of American citizens to the role of participant rather than spectator.

The Filibuster and the Future of the Senate

One of the most important debates in American politics today is around the senate filibuster. The filibuster is not in the Constitution, nor is it a law. Rather it is a senate rule that has changed and evolved over time. In its current form it is not so much a real filibuster as it is a requirement for cloture. In layperson’s terms, that means that currently almost any bill requires 60 of the 100 senators to vote to end debate before a vote on the bill can be taken. Practically speaking this means that all it takes to block any legislation is for the minority party to have 41 votes. As the senate has become a more deeply partisan institution, this makes it extremely difficult to pass any legislation.

It is not an exaggeration to say that Joe Biden’s legislative agenda, and, because of the For the People Actthat is currently in front of the senate, the future of American democracy, both depend on abolishing the filibuster. Again, because the filibuster is a senate rule it would only take all fifty Democratic senators, and a tie-breaking vote from Vice-President Kamala Harris, to end the filibuster. 

As recently as a year ago, it seemed very unlikely that the filibuster would be significantly altered. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden was hesitant to take such a step as were several of the more conservative Democratic senators like West Virginia’s Joe Manchin and California’s Dianne Feinstein. This reluctance stemmed from a lingering vision, or perhaps fantasy, of a more cordial senate where there was cooperation across party lines as well as a fear that with no filibuster Democrats would be vulnerable the next time the Republicans controlled both houses of congress and the White House, as the Democrats do now. 

In recent weeks, Biden, Feinstein and Manchin have indicated they are open to substantially weakening the filibuster. This may be doable because it is there is a lot of grey area and room for compromise around the filibuster. For example, it might be possible to increase the kinds of legislation that are exempt from the filibuster, as Supreme Court nominations currently are. There is also the possibility of returning to what is now being called the “talking filibuster.” This would require senators seeking to filibuster a bill to remain on the senate floor and talk, rather than simply vote against cloture. It would lead to delays in voting on some bills, but in most cases the vote would still be held.

The most outspoken supporter of the filibuster is probably Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has wielded it expertly in recent months as well as during the first six years of the Obama administration. McConnell understands the value of de facto minority veto in the senate and is clearly terrified of losing that tool. For a Republican Party that has not received a majority of votes in a presidential election since 2004 and whose political base is much older and whiter than the rest of America, this senate veto power means that it is not necessary to compete for more votes or to expand their support. Rather, as long as the Republican Party can hold 41 senate seats, something that is relatively easy, the GOP can stymie progressive legislation. 

There is another danger in preserving the filibuster in its current form. The filibuster, if unchanged, will ultimately lead the senate to marginalize itself. The Constitution gives the senate enormous power. It ratifies treaties, confirms the cabinet and federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, and must approve of any legislation before it becomes law. However, if the senate continues to be the choke point in the legislative system where the angry white minority that is the engine of the Republican Party is able to stop any legislation, that power will begin, or more accurately, continue, to wither.

The US system of government has always oddly flexible. If one structure stops working, others will take its place. A dysfunctional senate will mean more governance through executive orders and federal agencies-in other words a stronger presidency. In a democracy, it is best when elected officials discuss and vote on legislation, but when that cannot happen, much of governance falls to unelected bureaucrats and judges. That trend, which is already occurring in the US, will continue to accelerate if the filibuster remains. Additionally, a federal government that cannot pass laws will lead to states and local governments doing more. The impact of that will depend on the state. States like California already have much more progressive laws, policies, budgets and regulations than the national government, while others like Alabama or South Dakota are more conservative than Washington.

In the last several years the notion of abolishing the filibuster has migrated from an obscure idea to an important part of the progressive agenda. The filibuster is now more precarious than at any time in decades. The stakes could not be higher. The senate can either remain a hostage to antiquated rules with their roots in efforts to defend white supremacy or it can once again be an important part of the project of American democracy, but it cannot be both.

Photo: cc/ Sebastian Vital