Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Special pages
Niidae Wiki
Search
Search
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
Politics of the United States
(section)
Page
Discussion
English
Read
Edit
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Page information
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Concerns, problems and criticism== Ongoing concerns include lack of representation in the [[Territories of the United States|U.S. territories]] and the [[Washington, D.C.|District of Columbia]]; fear that the interests of some are overrepresented, while others are underrepresented; a fear that certain features of the American political system make it less democratic, a fear that a small cultural elite has undermined traditional values, and whether policy and law-making is dominated by a small economic elite molding it to their interests. Greater representation given to small states in the [[United States Senate|Senate]] and the [[United States Electoral College|Electoral College]], [[First-past-the-post voting|"first-past-the-post"]] voting, [[Gerrymandering in the United States|gerrymandering]], etc.—have in recent years had a more extreme effect and have begun to create a disconnect between what the government does (in legislation and court rulings) and what the majority of Americans want.<ref>{{cite news |date=July 7, 2022 |title=America's new exceptionalism |newspaper=The Economist |url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/07/07/americas-new-exceptionalism |access-date=October 17, 2022}}</ref> In an August 31, 2022, poll by [[Quinnipiac University#Quinnipiac Polling Institute|Quinnipiac University]], 69 percent of Democrats and 69 percent of Republicans replied yes to the question "Do you think the nation's democracy is in danger of collapse".<ref name="Qinnipiac-31-8-2022">{{cite news |title=Biden's Approval Rating Surges After Hitting Low Mark In July, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Half Of Americans Say Trump Should Be Prosecuted On Criminal Charges Over His Handling Of Classified Documents. 21. Do you think the nation's democracy is in danger of collapse, or don't you think so? |url=https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3854 |access-date=September 20, 2022 |publisher=Qinnipiac University poll |date=August 31, 2022}}</ref> A 2020 study, "Global Satisfaction with Democracy" by the Bennett Institute for Public Policy at the University of Cambridge, found that <blockquote>for the first time on record, polls show a majority of Americans dissatisfied with their system of government—a system of which they were once famously proud. Such levels of democratic dissatisfaction would not be unusual elsewhere. But for the United States, it marks an "end of exceptionalism"—a profound shift in America's view of itself, and therefore, of its place in the world.<ref name=Edsall-28-9-2022>{{cite news|title=Seven Years of Trump Has the Right Wing Taking the Long View |date=September 28, 2022 |author=Thomas B. Edsall |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/28/opinion/trump-right-wing-america.html|access-date=2022-09-30}}</ref> </blockquote> Concerns about the American political system include how well it represents and serves the interests of Americans. They include: * underrepresentation of certain groups ([[Women in the United States House of Representatives|women]], [[African Americans|Black people]], [[Latin Americans]], [[Native Americans in the United States|Native Americans]], [[LGBT people in the United States|LGBT people]], and those under 60 years old); * complete failure to represent other groups (citizens living in [[Territories of the United States|territories]], in [[Washington, D.C.|D.C.]] (for Congress), and felons in some states); * whether policy and law-making is dominated by a small economic elite molding it to their interests;<ref name=sevcik-2014/><ref name="GilensPage"/> * whether a small cultural elite has undermined traditional values;<ref name="Bauman-2020"/> * lack of a universal or single payer healthcare system, instead of the current system of reliance on employer provided for-profit private healthcare More recently, concerns have included: * a significant disconnect between what the majority of Americans want and what its government does (in supreme court rulings, legislation, etc.). This has expanded since the 1990s due to systemic issues such as [[gerrymandering]], the [[United States Electoral College]], [[first-past-the-post voting]], etc. * "a growing movement inside one of the country's two major parties—the Republican Party—to refuse to accept defeat in an election"; * a belief (without evidence) that [[Voter impersonation in the United States|voter fraud]] is "being committed by minority voters on a massive scale" preventing Republicans from being elected.<ref name="Newkirk-myth-2021">{{cite news |last1=Newkirk |first1=Vann R. II |title=When the Myth of Voter Fraud Comes for You |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/voter-fraud-myth-election-lie/620846/ |access-date=October 2, 2022 |work=The Atlantic |date=December 14, 2021}}</ref> === Underrepresentation by gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation=== Observations of historical trends and current governmental demographics have raised concerns about the equity of [[Representation (politics)|political representation]] in the United States. In particular, scholars have noted that levels of [[descriptive representation]]—which refers to when political representatives share demographic backgrounds or characteristics with their constituents—do not match the racial and gender makeup of the US.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last1=Ellis|first1=William Curtis |last2=Wilson|first2=Walter Clark|date=2013|title=Minority Chairs and Congressional Attention to Minority Issues: The Effect of Descriptive Representation in Positions of Institutional Power |journal=Social Science Quarterly|volume=94|issue=5|pages=1207–1221|doi=10.1111/ssqu.12023 |jstor=42864138|issn=0038-4941}}</ref> Descriptive representation is noted to be beneficial because of its symbolic representative benefits as a source of emotional identification with one's representatives.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last1=English|first1=Ashley|last2=Pearson|first2=Kathryn|last3=Strolovitch |first3=Dara Z.|date=2019|title=Who Represents Me? Race, Gender, Partisan Congruence, and Representational Alternatives in a Polarized America|journal=Political Research Quarterly|volume=72 |issue=4|pages=785–804 |doi=10.1177/1065912918806048|jstor=45223003|s2cid=158576286|issn=1065-9129}}</ref> Furthermore, descriptive representation can lead to more substantive and functional representation, as well as greater institutional power, which can result in minority constituents having both representatives with matching policy views and power in the political system.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":4">{{Cite journal|last=Jeong|first=Hoi Ok|date=2013 |title=Minority Policies and Political Participation Among Latinos: Exploring Latinos' Response to Substantive Representation|journal=Social Science Quarterly|volume=94|issue=5|pages=1245–1260|doi=10.1111/j.1540-6237.2012.00883.x|jstor=42864140 |issn=0038-4941}}</ref> Serving as a [[United States congressional committee|congressional committee]] chair is considered to be a good example of this relationship, as chairs control which issues are addressed by committees, especially through hearings that bring substantial attention to certain issues.<ref name=":0" /> Though minorities like [[African Americans]] and [[Hispanic and Latino Americans|Latinos]] have rarely served as committee chairs, studies have shown that their presence has directly led to significantly higher likelihoods of minority issues being addressed.<ref name=":0" /> Given that racial and ethnic minorities of all backgrounds have historically been marginalized from participating in the US political system, their political representation and access to policymaking has been limited.<ref name=":0" /> Similarly, women lack proportional representation in the United States, bringing into question the extent to which women's issues are adequately addressed.<ref name=":7">{{Cite journal|last1=Dolan|first1=Kathleen|last2=Hansen|first2=Michael |date=2018|title=Blaming Women or Blaming the System? Public Perceptions of Women's Underrepresentation in Elected Office|journal=Political Research Quarterly|volume=71|issue=3|pages=668–680|doi=10.1177/1065912918755972 |jstor=45106690|s2cid=149220469|issn=1065-9129}}</ref> Other minority groups, such as the [[LGBT community|LGBTQ community]], have also been disadvantaged by an absence of equitable representation—especially since scholars have noted their gradual shift from originally being perceived as more of a moral political issue to being considered an actual constituency.<ref name=":9">{{Cite book|title=LGBTQ Politics: A Critical Reader|date=2017 |volume=3 |publisher=NYU Press|doi=10.2307/j.ctt1pwt8jh|jstor=j.ctt1pwt8jh|isbn=978-1-4798-9387-4}}</ref> Political representation is also an essential part of making sure that citizens have faith that representatives, political institutions, and democracy take their interests into account.<ref name=":1" /> For women and minorities, this issue can occur even in the levels of government that are meant to be closest to constituents, such as among [[Member of Congress|members of Congress]] in the House of Representatives. Scholars have noted that in positions such as these, even close proximity to constituents does not necessarily translate to an understanding of their needs or experiences and that constituents can still feel unrepresented.<ref name=":1" /> In a democracy, a lack of faith in one's representatives can cause them to search for less-democratic alternative forms of representation, like unelected individuals or interest groups.<ref name=":1" /> For racial and ethnic minorities, the risk of seeking alternative representation is especially acute, as lived experiences often lead to different political perspectives that can be difficult for white representatives to fully understand or adequately address.<ref name=":0" /> Moreover, studies have begun to increasingly show that people of all races and genders tend to prefer having members of Congress who share their race or gender, which can also lead to more engagement between constituents and their representatives, as well as higher likelihoods of contacting or having faith in their congressperson.<ref name=":1" /> In addition to making it more likely that constituents will trust their representatives, having descriptive representation can help sustain an individual's positive perceptions of government. When considering women in particular, it has been suggested that broader economic and social equality could result from first working toward ensuring more equitable political representation for women, which would also help promote increased faith between women and their representatives.<ref name=":6">{{Cite journal |last=Sanbonmatsu|first=Kira|date=2020 |title=Women's Underrepresentation in the U.S. Congress|journal=Daedalus|volume=149|issue=1|pages=40–55 |doi=10.1162/daed_a_01772|jstor=48563031|s2cid=209487865|issn=0011-5266|doi-access=free}}</ref> ==== Race and ethnicity ==== [[File:Racial and Ethnic Demographics of the 117th US Congress, House of Representatives.svg|thumb|There are 57 African American members of the US House (blue), 47 Hispanics and Latinos (red), 5 Native Americans (yellow), 18 Asian Americans (green), and 314 Whites (gray).[[117th United States Congress|117th Congress]] (2021-2023) ]] [[File:Racial and Ethnic Demographics of the 117th US Congress, Senate.svg|thumb|There are 3 African American members of the US Senate (blue), 7 Hispanics or Latinos (red), 0 Native Americans, 2 Asian Americans (green), and 88 European Americans(gray). [[117th United States Congress|117th Congress]] (2021-2023)]] ===== African Americans ===== {{See also|African Americans in the United States Congress}}Although African Americans have begun to continually win more elected positions and increase their overall political representation, they still lack proportional representation across a variety of different levels of government.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Shah|first=Paru|date=2014|title=It Takes a Black Candidate: A Supply-Side Theory of Minority Representation |journal=Political Research Quarterly|volume=67|issue=2|pages=266–279|doi=10.1177/1065912913498827|jstor=24371782|s2cid=155069482|issn=1065-9129}}</ref> Some estimates indicate that most gains for African Americans—and other minorities in general—have not occurred at higher levels of government, but rather at sub-levels in federal and state governments.<ref name=":2" /> Additionally, congressional data from 2017 revealed that 35.7% of African Americans nationwide had a congressperson of the same race, while the majority of black Americans were represented by members of Congress of a different race.<ref name=":1" /> Scholars have partially explained this discrepancy by focusing on the obstacles that black candidates face. Factors like election type, campaign costs, district demographics, and historical barriers, such as [[Voter suppression in the United States|voter suppression]], can all hinder the likelihood of a black candidate winning an election or even choosing to enter into an election process.<ref name=":2" /> Demographics, in particular, are noted to have a large influence on black candidate success, as research has shown that the ratio of white-to-black voters can have a significant impact on a black candidate's chance of winning an election and that large black populations tend to increase the resources available to African American candidates.<ref name=":2" /> Despite the variety of obstacles that have contributed to the lack of proportional representation for African Americans, other factors have been found to increase the likelihood of a black candidate winning an election. Based on data from a study in [[Louisiana]], prior black incumbency, as well as running for an office that other black candidates had pursued in the past, increased the likelihood of African Americans entering into races and winning elections.<ref name=":2" /> ===== Hispanic and Latino Americans ===== {{See also|Hispanic and Latino Americans in politics}}As the most populous minority demographic identified in the 2010 US Census, [[Hispanic and Latino Americans]] have become an increasingly important constituency that is spread throughout the United States.<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal|last=Wallace|first=Sophia J.|date=2014|title=Examining Latino Support for Descriptive Representation: The Role of Identity and Discrimination |journal=Social Science Quarterly|volume=95|issue=2|pages=311–327|doi=10.1111/ssqu.12038|jstor=26612166|issn=0038-4941}}</ref> Despite also constituting 15% of the population in at least a quarter of House districts, Latino representation in Congress has not correspondingly increased.<ref name=":3" /> Furthermore, in 2017, Latino members of Congress only represented about one-quarter of the total Latino population in the US.<ref name=":1" /> While there are many potential explanations for this disparity, including issues related to voter suppression, surveys of Latino voters have identified trends unique to their demographic—though survey data has still indicated that descriptive representation is important to Hispanic and Latino voters.<ref name=":3" /> While descriptive representation may be considered important, an analysis of a 2004 national survey of Latinos revealed that political participation and substantive representation were strongly associated with each other, possibly indicating that voters mobilize more on behalf of candidates whose policy views reflect their own, rather than for those who share their ethnic background.<ref name=":4" /> Moreover, a breakdown of the rationale for emphasizing descriptive representation reveals additional factors behind supporting Latino candidates, such as the view that they may have a greater respect and appreciation for [[Spanish language|Spanish]] or a belief that Latinos are "linked" together, indicating the significance of shared cultural experiences and values.<ref name=":3" /> Although the reasons behind choosing to vote for Latino candidates are not monolithic, the election of Latinos to Congress has been identified as resulting in benefits for minorities overall. While it has been argued that unique district-related issues can take equal or greater precedence than Latino interests for Hispanic and Latino members of Congress, studies have also shown that Latinos are more likely to support African American members of Congress—and vice versa—beyond just what is expected from shared party membership.<ref name=":4" /> ===== Native Americans ===== {{See also|Native Americans in United States elections|Native American Politics}}Similar to other minority groups, [[Native Americans in the United States|Native Americans]] often lack representation due to electoral policies. Gerrymandering, in particular, is noted as a method of concentrating Native voters in a limited number of districts to reduce their ability to influence multiple elections.<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal |last1=Schroedel|first1=Jean Reith|last2=Aslanian|first2=Artour|date=2017 |title=A Case Study of Descriptive Representation: The Experience of Native American Elected Officials in South Dakota|journal=American Indian Quarterly |volume=41|issue=3|pages=250–286|doi=10.5250/amerindiquar.41.3.0250|jstor=10.5250/amerindiquar.41.3.0250|s2cid=159930747|issn=0095-182X}}</ref> Despite structural efforts to limit their political representation, some states with large Native American populations have higher levels of representation. [[South Dakota]] has a Native population of about 9% with multiple [[List of federally recognized tribes in the United States|federally recognized tribal nations]], and it has been used as a case study of representation.<ref name=":5" /> A 2017 study that conducted interviews of former state elected officials in South Dakota revealed that even though many felt that they were only able to implement a limited number of significant changes for tribal communities, they still considered it to be "absolutely essential" that Native Americans had at least some descriptive representation to prevent complete exclusion from the political process.<ref name=":5" /> Moreover, formerly elected state and local government officials asserted that ensuring that the issues and concerns of tribal nations were addressed and understood depended on politicians with Native backgrounds.<ref name=":5" /> Historically backed suspicion and skepticism of the predominantly white US government was also considered to be an important reason for having representatives that reflect the histories and views of Native Americans.<ref name=":5" /> ===== Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders ===== {{See also|Asian Americans in politics}}Relative to other, larger minority demographics in the United States, [[Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders]] (AAPI) face different challenges related to political representation. Few congressional districts have a population that includes over 50% Asian Americans, which can elevate the likelihood of being represented by someone of a different race or ethnicity.<ref name=":1" /> As with other minorities, this can result in people feeling unrepresented by their member of Congress.<ref name=":1" /> ==== Gender and political representation ==== {{See also|Gender and politics|Women in the United States House of Representatives|Women in the United States Senate}} [[File:Gender Distribution of the 117th US Congress, House of Representatives.svg|thumb|There are 122 women members of the US House (blue) and 319 men (gray).[[117th United States Congress|117th Congress]] (2021-2023)]] [[File:Gender Distribution of the 117th US Congress, Senate.svg|thumb|There are 24 women members of the US Senate (blue) and 76 men (gray).[[117th United States Congress|117th Congress]] (2021-2023)]] Women have made continual socioeconomic progress in many key areas of society, such as in employment and education, and in comparison to men, women have [[Voting gender gap in the United States|voted at higher rates]] for over forty years—making their lack of more proportional representation in the political system surprising.<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":6" /> Some scholars have partially attributed this discrepancy to the [[electoral system]] in the United States, as it does not provide a mechanism for the types of [[Women in government|gender quotas]] seen in other countries.<ref name=":6" /> Additionally, even though gerrymandering and concentrated political representation can essentially ensure at least some representation for minority racial and ethnic groups, women—who are relatively evenly spread throughout the United States—do not receive similar benefits from this practice.<ref name=":1" /> Identifying the source of unequal gender representation of individuals can be predicted along party and ideological lines. A survey of attitudes toward women candidates revealed that Democrats are more likely to attribute systemic issues to gender inequalities in political representation, while Republicans are less likely to hold this perspective.<ref name=":7" /> While identifying an exact source of inequality may ultimately prove unlikely, some recent studies have suggested that the political ambitions of women may be influenced by the wide variety of proposed factors attributed to the underrepresentation of women.<ref name=":7" /> In contrast to attributing specific reasons to unequal representation, political party has also been identified as a way of predicting if a woman running for office is more likely to receive support, as women candidates are more likely to receive votes from members of their party and [[Independent voter|Independents]].<ref name=":7" /> ===== Social inequality and sexism ===== {{See also|Sexism in American political elections|Gender inequality}}Social inequality and [[sexism]] have been noted by scholars as influencing the electoral process for women. In a survey of attitudes toward women candidates, women respondents were far more likely to view the process of running for office as "hostile" to women than men, especially when considering public hesitancy to support women candidates, media coverage, and public discrimination.<ref name=":7" /> [[Political fundraising]] for candidates is also an area of inequality, as men donate at a higher rate than women—which is compounded by gender and [[racial inequality in the United States|racial inequalities]] related to income and employment.<ref name=":6" /> Recent increases in woman-focused fundraising groups have started to alter this imbalance.<ref name=":6" /> Given that disproportionate levels of household labor often become the responsibility of women, discrimination within households has also been identified as a major influence on the capability of women to run for office.<ref name=":6" /> For women in the LGBTQ community, some scholars have raised concern about the unequal attention paid to the needs of lesbians compared to transgender, bisexual, and queer women, with lesbian civil rights described as receiving more of a focus from politicians.<ref name=":9" /> ===== Social pressures and influences ===== Social pressures are another influence on women who run for office, often coinciding with sexism and discrimination. Some scholars have argued that views of discrimination have prompted a decrease in the supply of women willing to run for office, though this has been partially countered by those who argue that women are actually just more "strategic" when trying to identify an election with favorable conditions.<ref name=":6" /> Other factors, like the overrepresentation of men, have been described as influencing perceptions of men as somehow inherently more effective as politicians or leaders, which some scholars argue could pressure women to stay out of elections.<ref name=":6" /> Others contend that the overrepresentation of men can actually result in "political momentum" for women, such as during the [[Year of the Woman]].<ref name=":6" /> Within some racial and ethnic groups, social influences can also shape political engagement. Among Latinos, Latinas are more likely to partake in non-electoral activities, like community organizing, when compared to men.<ref name=":3" /> Despite differences in political activity and social pressures, elected women from both political parties have voiced their support for electing more women to Congress to increase the acceptance of their voices and experiences.<ref name=":6" /> Furthermore, studies have found that increasing the descriptive representation of women can provide positive social influences for democracy as a whole, such as improved perceptions of an individual's political efficacy and government's responsiveness to the needs of people.<ref name=":1" /> When women can vote for a woman candidate of the same party, studies have also found that these influences can be magnified.<ref name=":1" /> ==== LGBT political representation ==== {{See also|LGBTQ people in the United States}} [[File:Celebrating a new America -lovewins 58242 (18588276403).jpg|thumb|The [[White House]] illuminated in the colors of the [[Rainbow flag (LGBT)|rainbow flag]] after the ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'' ruling legalized [[same-sex marriage in the United States|same-sex marriage]] nationally]] Although some scholars have disputed the benefits of descriptive representation, only a small number have argued that this form of representation actually has negative impacts on the group it represents.<ref name=":8">{{Cite journal|last=Haider-Markel|first=Donald P.|date=2007|title=Representation and Backlash: The Positive and Negative Influence of Descriptive Representation|journal=Legislative Studies Quarterly|volume=32|issue=1|pages=107–133 |doi=10.3162/036298007X202001|jstor=40263412|issn=0362-9805}}</ref> Studies of bills relating to [[LGBTQ rights in the United States|LGBT rights]] in state legislatures have provided a more nuanced analysis. Pro-LGBT bills tend to be introduced in higher numbers when more LGBT representatives are elected to state legislatures, which may also indicate an increased likelihood of substantive representation.<ref name=":8" /> Increases in openly LGBT state lawmakers have also been hypothesized to inadvertently result in more anti-LGBT legislation, potentially as the result of backlash to their presence.<ref name=":8" /> Despite the risk of negative consequences, at least one study has concluded that the LGBT community receives net-benefits from increased openly LGBT representation.<ref name=":8" /> On the federal level, the presence of the [[Congressional Equality Caucus|Congressional LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus]] has been identified as improving the ability of Congress to address the intersectional issues faced by the LGBT community, as well as provide a source of pressure other than constituency on members of Congress to address LGBT issues.<ref name=":9" /> Additionally, non-LGBT members of the caucus have been criticized for not sponsoring enough legislation, emphasizing the value of openly LGBT members of Congress.<ref name=":9" /> While descriptive representation has provided benefits overall, scholars have noted that some groups in the community, such as [[transgender]] and [[Bisexuality|bisexual]] people, tend to receive less focus than [[gay]]s and [[lesbian]]s.<ref name=":9" /> ===Democratic backsliding=== {{Main|Democratic backsliding in the United States}} At least two "well-regarded" global [[democracy indices]] — [[V-Dem Democracy indices]],<ref name="3f">A Luhrmann et al., Autocratization Surge–Resistance Grows: Democracy Report 2020 (Lindenberg: Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem), 2020): https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/f0/5d/f05d46d8-626f-4b20-8e4e-…{{Dead link|date=March 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}.</ref> and [[Democracy Index|Democracy Index (The Economist)]]<ref name="4f">Democracy Index 2020 (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2020): https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index.</ref> — "show an erosion of American democracy since 2016".<ref name="Levitsky-2020">{{cite journal |last1=Levitsky |first1=Steven |last2=Ziblatt |first2=Daniel |title=The Crisis of American Democracy |journal=American Educator |date=Fall 2020 |url=https://www.aft.org/ae/fall2020/levitsky_ziblatt |access-date=October 19, 2022}}</ref> === Disconnect between public opinion and government policy=== A disconnect between "the power to set government policy" and political opinions of the general public has been noted by commentators and scholars (such as [[David Leonhardt]]).<ref name="Leonhardt-NYT-17-9-22"/> The United States is "far and away the most countermajoritarian democracy in the world," according to Steven Levitsky.<ref>A professor of government at Harvard University and a co-author of the book ''How Democracies Die'', with Daniel Ziblatt. Quoted in {{cite news |last1=Leonhardt |first1=David |title=DEMOCRACY CHALLENGED 'A Crisis Coming': The Twin Threats to American Democracy |newspaper=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/17/us/american-democracy-threats.html |access-date=September 20, 2022 |date=September 17, 2022}}</ref> Before the 2000 election, only three candidates for president won "while losing the popular vote ([[John Quincy Adams]], [[Rutherford Hayes]] and [[Benjamin Harrison]]), and each served only a single term", while as of 2022 "two of the past four presidents have taken office despite losing the popular vote"<ref name="Leonhardt-NYT-17-9-22"/> - [[2000 United States presidential election|George W. Bush in 2000]] and [[2016 United States presidential election|Donald Trump in 2016]].<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38254946 |title=Did Clinton win more votes than any white man in history? |date=December 12, 2016 |publisher=[[BBC News]] |access-date=September 9, 2018}}</ref> Leonhardt points out that in one branch of the federal government—the Supreme Court—conservative legal decisions "both sweeping and, according to polls, unpopular" were delivered in 2022, what is likely the beginning of a reshaping of "American politics for years, if not decades" to come by the court's "Republican appointees". This is despite the fact that the president appoints the nominees, and that presidential candidates of the Democratic Party have won the popular vote in seven out of eight last elections (from 1992 to 2020).<ref name="Leonhardt-NYT-17-9-22"/> In the 2020 U.S. Senate, "50 Democratic senators effectively represent 186 million Americans, while the 50 Republican senators effectively represent 145 million".<ref name="Leonhardt-NYT-17-9-22"/> Explanations include: * geographical sorting by ideology. "Parts of the country granted outsize power by the Constitution" (i.e. less populated states), formerly voted more or less similarly to the large states and urban areas that were granted less power. Thus "the small-state bonus" giving disproportionate power in "the Senate and Electoral College had only a limited effect on national results". This is no longer the case. Rural areas are more uniformly conservative and urban areas liberal.<ref name="Leonhardt-NYT-17-9-22"/> More important is "the winner-take-all nature of the Electoral College" (all states except Maine and Nebraska), which gives greater bias to Republicans.<ref name="Leonhardt-NYT-17-9-22"/> * faster population growth of large (population) states than small states.<ref name="Leonhardt-NYT-17-9-22"/> The state with the largest population in 1790 was Virginia with approximately 13 times as many residents as the smallest (Delaware). Today, "California, which consistently votes for liberal candidates statewide, "has 68 times as many residents as Wyoming; 53 times as many as Alaska; and at least 20 times as many as another 11 states". When a candidate wins a statewide election in California (or New York) by a landslide, these large numbers of popular votes mean nothing in the tally of [[United States Electoral College|Electoral College]] votes or Senate seats.<ref name="Leonhardt-NYT-17-9-22"/> * while the House of Representatives would seem to have "a more equitable system for allocating political power"—dividing the country "into 435 districts, each with a broadly similar number of people" (760,000 as of 2022)—Leonhardt argues two features distort this equity: ** [[gerrymandering]], i.e. the drawing of district boundaries by State legislatures for partisan advantage, something Republicans have been "more forceful" about in recent years.<ref name="Leonhardt-NYT-17-9-22"/> ** the phenomenon of "[[wasted vote]]s", whereby the increasing concentration of Democratic voters in large metro areas means Democrats often win elections in these districts by "[[Landslide victory|landslides]]", leading to the overall nationwide proportion of votes for Democrats significantly less than the proportion of seats for Democrats in the House.<ref name="Leonhardt-NYT-17-9-22"/> ====Oligarchy==== {{Further|Income inequality in the United States#Effects on democracy and society}} In 2014, [[United Press International]] reported that the political structure of the United States has become an [[oligarchy]], where a small economic elite overwhelmingly dominate policy and law.<ref name=sevcik-2014>Sevcik, J.C. (April 16, 2014) [http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/04/16/The-US-is-not-a-democracy-but-an-oligarchy-study-concludes/2761397680051/ "The US is not a democracy but an oligarchy, study concludes"] ''UPI''</ref> Some academic researchers suggest a drift toward oligarchy has been occurring by way of the influence of corporations, wealthy, and other special interest groups, leaving individual citizens with less impact than economic elites and organized interest groups in the political process.<ref name="GilensPage">{{cite journal |title=Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens |author1=Martin Gilens |author2=Benjamin I. Page |name-list-style=amp |journal=[[Perspectives on Politics]] |date=2014 |volume=12 |issue=3 |pages=564–581 |doi=10.1017/S1537592714001595 |url=|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>[[Thomas Piketty|Piketty, Thomas]] (2014). ''[[Capital in the Twenty-First Century]].'' [[Belknap Press]]. {{ISBN|067443000X}} p. 514: *"the risk of a drift towards oligarchy is real and gives little reason for optimism about where the United States is headed."</ref><ref>(French economist Thomas Piketty), Associated Press, December 23, 2017, [http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-qa-a-french-economists-grim-view-of-wealth-gap-2014apr23-story.html Q&A: A French economist's grim view of wealth gap], Accessed April 26, 2014, "...The main problem to me is really the proper working of our democratic institutions. It's just not compatible with an extreme sort of oligarchy where 90 percent of the wealth belongs to a very tiny group ..."</ref><ref>Alan Wolfe (book reviewer), October 24, 2010, The Washington Post, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/22/AR2010102203010.html Review of "The Mendacity of Hope," by Roger D. Hodge], Accessed April 26, 2014, "...Although Hodge devotes a chapter to foreign policy, the main charge he levels against Obama is that, like all politicians in the United States, he serves at the pleasure of a financial oligarchy. ... "</ref> An April 2014 study by political scientists Martin Gilens ([[Princeton University]]) and [[Benjamin Page]] ([[Northwestern University]]) concluded that the U.S. government does not represent the interests of the majority of its citizens but instead is "ruled by those of the rich and powerful".<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Gilens |first1=Martin |last2=Page |first2=Benjamin I. |date=September 2014 |title=Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B |journal=Perspectives on Politics |language=en |volume=12 |issue=3 |pages=564–581 |doi=10.1017/S1537592714001595 |issn=1537-5927}}</ref> The researchers after analyzing nearly 1,800 U.S. policies between 1981 and 2002, stated that government policies tend to favour special interests and lobbying organizations, and that whenever a majority of citizens disagrees with the economic elites, the elites tend to prevail in getting their way.<ref name="GilensPage" /> While not characterizing the United States as an "oligarchy" or "[[plutocracy]]" outright, Gilens and Page give weight to the idea of a "civil oligarchy" as used by [[Jeffrey A. Winters]], saying, "Winters has posited a comparative theory of 'Oligarchy,' in which the wealthiest citizens—even in a 'civil oligarchy' like the United States—dominate policy concerning crucial issues of wealth- and income-protection." In their study, Gilens and Page reached these conclusions: {{Blockquote|When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it. ... [T]he preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1017/S1537592714001595 |quote=When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."|title=Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens|year=2014|last1=Gilens|first1=Martin |last2=Page|first2=Benjamin I.|journal=Perspectives on Politics|volume=12|issue=3|pages=564–581|doi-access=free}}</ref>}} [[E. J. Dionne Jr.]] described what he considers the effects of ideological and oligarchical interests on the judiciary. The journalist, columnist, and scholar interprets recent [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] decisions as ones that allow wealthy elites to use [[economic power]] to influence political outcomes in their favor. In speaking about the Supreme Court's ''[[McCutcheon v. FEC]]'' and ''[[Citizens United v. FEC]]'' decisions, Dionne wrote: "Thus has this court conferred on wealthy people the right to give vast sums of money to politicians while undercutting the rights of millions of citizens to cast a ballot."<ref>E. J. Dionne Jr., April 6, 2014, ''The Washington Post'', [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-jr-supreme-oligarchy/2014/04/06/823f15ea-bc2e-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html Supreme oligarchy], Accessed April 26, 2014. "...Thus has this court conferred on wealthy people the right to give vast sums of money to politicians while undercutting the rights of millions of citizens to cast a ballot."</ref> Nobel Prize–winning economist [[Paul Krugman]] wrote: {{Blockquote|The stark reality is that we have a society in which money is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few people. This threatens to make us a democracy in name only.<ref>Paul Krugman, ''The New York Times'', November 3, 2011, [https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/opinion/oligarchy-american-style.html Oligarchy, American Style], Accessed April 26, 2014</ref>}} A November 2022 study by [[Pew Research Center]] showed that majorities in both the Republican and Democratic parties held increasingly negative views of major financial institutions and large corporations.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/11/17/anti-corporate-sentiment-in-u-s-is-now-widespread-in-both-parties/|title=Anti-corporate sentiment in U.S. is now widespread in both parties|last1=Dunn|first1=Amina|last2=Cerda|first2=Andy|date=November 17, 2022 |website=Pew Research Center |publisher= |access-date=November 28, 2022 |quote=}}</ref> ==== Gerrymandering ==== {{Main|Gerrymandering in the United States}} [[Gerrymandering]] is the practice of shaping the boundaries of [[electoral district]]s for partisan advantage—those boundaries being reviewed and usually changed after every [[United States census]], i.e. every ten years. Gerrymandering involves what's commonly called "cracking and packing". * "Cracking" is the process of moving the boundaries of districts to spreads opposition voters thinly enough across many districts so that they constitute a safe margin below 50%. Cracking spreads opposition voters thinly across many districts to dilute their power. * "Packing" is the process of concentrating opposition voters in one or more (but always a minority of) districts, to "waste" opposition votes.<ref name="Short-2018">{{cite news |last1=Short |first1=John Rennie |title=4 Reasons Gerrymandering Is Getting Worse |url=https://umbc.edu/stories/4-reasons-gerrymandering-is-getting-worse/ |access-date=September 27, 2022 |work=UMBC Magazine |date=29 October 2018}}</ref> Used almost since the founding of the United States (the term was coined in 1810 after a review of [[Massachusetts]]'s redistricting maps of 1812 set by Governor [[Elbridge Gerry]] noted that one of the districts looked like a [[salamander]]),<ref name="Short-2018"/> in the 21st century it has "become a much more effective tool".<ref name="Short-2018"/> Since 2010, detailed maps and high-speed computing have facilitated gerrymandering by political parties in the redistricting process, in order to gain control of state legislation and congressional representation and potentially to maintain that control over several decades, even against shifting political changes in a state's population. It allows the drawing of districts "with surgical precision".<ref name="Short-2018"/> According to Julia Kirschenbaum and Michael Li of the Brennan Center <blockquote>In 2010, Republicans—in an effort to control the drawing of congressional maps—forged a campaign to win majorities in as many state legislatures as possible. It was wildly successful, giving them control over the drawing of 213 congressional districts. The redrawing of maps that followed produced some of the most extreme gerrymanders in history. In battleground Pennsylvania, for example, the congressional map gave Republicans a virtual lock on 13 of the state's 18 congressional districts, even in elections where Democrats won the majority of the statewide congressional vote.<ref name="Kirschenbaum-12-8-21">{{cite web |last1=Li |first1=Michael |last2=Kirschenbaum |first2=Julia |title=Explainer. Gerrymandering Explained |url=https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/gerrymandering-explained |publisher=Brennan Center |access-date=September 27, 2022 |date=August 12, 2021}}</ref></blockquote> Attempts to appeal to the Supreme Court to disallow gerrymandering in cases such as ''Vieth v. Jubelirer'' in 2004 and its passing up of "numerous opportunities" in 2017 and 2018 "to decide upon the constitutional legality or illegality of gerrymandering" has "emboldened ever more partisan gerrymandering".<ref name="Short-2018"/> In addition to giving one party power beyond its popular support, gerrymandering has been criticized for weakening the political power of minority voters by concentrated them into district(s) (though this process can also help ensure the election of a representative of the same race).<ref name=":5" /> ===Polarization increase=== {{main|Political polarization in the United States}} Since the 1970s, the United States has grown more polarized, with rapid increases in polarization during the 2000s onward.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Grumbach|first=Jacob M.|date=2018|title=From Backwaters to Major Policymakers: Policy Polarization in the States, 1970–2014|journal=Perspectives on Politics|language=en|volume=16|issue=2|pages=416–435|doi=10.1017/S153759271700425X|issn=1537-5927|doi-access=free}}</ref> As a general rule, urban areas and suburbs have become more "blue", Democratic or liberal, while agricultural rural areas have become more "red", Republican or conservative. Since many states have no large or extensive urban areas the result is that there are many "red" states in the south and Midwest, while coastal states which contain extensive urbanized areas tend to be "blue." Rural areas with a recreational focus such as ski resorts are an exception to the general rule.<ref name="CF11722">{{cite web |author1=Jacob R. Brown |author2=Ryan D. Enos |author3=Enrico Cantoni |author4=Vincent Pons |author5=Emilie Sartre |title=The Increase in Partisan Segregation in the United States |date=January 17, 2022 |url=http://congress-files.s3.amazonaws.com/2022-07/Brown_Cantoni_Enos_Pons_Sartre%2520%25282022%2529_0.pdf |access-date=January 26, 2023 |url-status=dead |archive-date=January 25, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230125100305/http://congress-files.s3.amazonaws.com/2022-07/Brown_Cantoni_Enos_Pons_Sartre%2520%25282022%2529_0.pdf }}</ref><ref name="NYT12523">{{cite news |author1=Thomas B. Edsall |author1-link=Thomas B. Edsall |title=The Resentment Fueling the Republican Party Is Not Coming From the Suburbs |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/25/opinion/rural-voters-republican-realignment.html |access-date=January 26, 2023 |work=The New York Times |date=January 25, 2023 |format=opinion}}</ref> The polarization has been both more ideological (differences between the policy positions) and affective (i.e. a dislike and distrust of opposing political groups), than comparable democracies.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Boxell|first1=Levi|last2=Gentzkow|first2=Matthew|last3=Shapiro|first3=Jesse M.|date=2022|title=Cross-Country Trends in Affective Polarization|journal=The Review of Economics and Statistics|volume=106 |issue=2 |pages=557–565|doi=10.1162/rest_a_01160|s2cid=246583807|issn=0034-6535|url=http://www.nber.org/papers/w26669.pdf }}</ref><ref name=Draca/> Polarization among U.S. legislators is asymmetric, as it has primarily been driven by a substantial rightward shift among congressional [[Republican Party (United States)|Republicans]], alongside a much smaller leftward shift among congressional [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democrats]].<ref name=":132">{{Citation|last1=Hacker|first1=Jacob S.|title=Confronting Asymmetric Polarization|date=2015|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/solutions-to-political-polarization-in-america/confronting-asymmetric-polarization/3966003B2517E22BF288796AC4985F34|work=Solutions to Political Polarization in America|pages=59–70|editor-last=Persily|editor-first=Nathaniel|place=Cambridge|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-1-107-45191-9|access-date=2021-02-04|last2=Pierson|first2=Paul}}</ref><ref name=":122">{{Cite journal|last1=Bonica|first1=Adam|last2=Sen|first2=Maya|date=2021|title=Estimating Judicial Ideology|journal=Journal of Economic Perspectives|language=en|volume=35|issue=1|pages=97–118|doi=10.1257/jep.35.1.97|issn=0895-3309|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name=":142">{{Cite book|last1=Benkler|first1=Yochai|url=https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780190923624.001.0001/oso-9780190923624-chapter-10|title=Polarization in American Politics|last2=Faris|first2=Robert|last3=Roberts|first3=Hal|date=2018-10-18|publisher=Oxford University Press|volume=1|language=en|doi=10.1093/oso/9780190923624.003.0010|isbn=978-0-19-092362-4}}</ref> [[New Democrats (United States)|New Democrats]] advocated for [[neoliberalism|neoliberal]] policies including financial [[deregulation]] and [[free trade]], which is seen to have shifted the Democratic Party rightward on economic issues.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Hickel|first1=Jason|url=https://www.routledge.com/The-Handbook-of-Neoliberalism/Springer-Birch-MacLeavy/p/book/9781138844001|title=The Handbook of Neoliberalism|date=2016|publisher=[[Routledge]]|isbn=978-1138844001|editor1-last=Springer|editor1-first=Simon|page=144|chapter=Neoliberalism and the End of Democracy|author-link1=Jason Hickel|editor2-last=Birch|editor2-first=Kean|editor3-last=MacLeavy|editor3-first=Julie|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=M5qkDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA142}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Marangos |first1=John |last2=Astroulakis |first2=Nikos |last3=Dafnomili |first3=Maria |editor1-last=Karagiannis|editor1-first=Nikolaos|editor2-last=Madjd-Sadjadi|editor2-first=Zagros |editor3-last=Sen|editor3-first=Swapan |date=2013 |title=The US Economy and Neoliberalism: Alternative Strategies and Policies |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=aYKfai1RlPYC&pg=PA58|chapter=Beyond US Neoliberalism and the Washington Consensus: The Challenge of Development Ethics for the USA |location= |publisher=Routledge |page=58 |isbn=978-1138904910}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Scheidel |first=Walter |author-link =Walter Scheidel |title =The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century |publisher=Princeton University Press |year =2017 |isbn =978-0691165028|page=416|url=http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10921.html}}</ref> Since the early 2010s, the party has shifted significantly to the left on social, cultural, and religious issues.<ref name=":22">{{Cite news |last1=Zengerle |first1=Jason |last2=Metz |first2=Justin |date=2022-06-29 |title=The Vanishing Moderate Democrat |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/29/magazine/moderate-democrat.html |access-date=2022-07-20 |issn=0362-4331 |quote=Over the last decade, the Democratic Party has moved significantly to the left on almost every salient political issue... on social, cultural and religious issues, particularly those related to criminal justice, race, abortion and gender identity, the Democrats have taken up ideological stances that many of the college-educated voters who now make up a sizable portion of the party's base cheer...}}</ref> According to the [[Pew Research Center]], members of both parties who have unfavorable opinions of the opposing party have doubled since 1994,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Doherty |first=Carroll |date=2014-06-17 |title=Which party is more to blame for political polarization? It depends on the measure |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/17/which-party-is-more-to-blame-for-political-polarization-it-depends-on-the-measure/ |access-date=2022-08-14 |publisher=Pew Research Center |language=en-US}}</ref> while those who have very unfavorable opinions of the opposing party are at record highs as of 2022.<ref>{{Cite news |date=August 17, 2022 |title=How Democrats and Republicans see each other |newspaper=The Economist |url=https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/08/17/how-democrats-and-republicans-see-each-other |access-date=2022-08-18 |issn=0013-0613}}</ref> === Concerns about the refusal to accept defeat === {{further|Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud}} [[File:2021 storming of the United States Capitol DSC09426-2 (50813677883) (cropped).jpg|thumb|right|upright|Signs reading "Stop the Steal" and "Off with their heads", photographed on the day of the January 6 attack]] Many commentators and scholars (such as [[David Leonhardt]]) have expressed alarm at the "growing movement inside one of the country's two major parties—the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]]—to refuse to accept defeat in an election".<ref name="Leonhardt-NYT-17-9-22">{{cite news |last1=Leonhardt |first1=David |title=DEMOCRACY CHALLENGED 'A Crisis Coming': The Twin Threats to American Democracy |newspaper=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/17/us/american-democracy-threats.html |access-date=September 20, 2022 |date=September 17, 2022}}</ref><ref name="V-Dem-2022">{{cite web |title=Democracy Report 2022 Autocratization Changing Nature? |url=https://v-dem.net/media/publications/dr_2022.pdf |website=V-Dem |access-date=September 20, 2022}}</ref><ref name="Homans-NYT-19-7-2022">{{cite news |last1=Homans |first1=Charles |title=How 'Stop the Steal' Captured the American Right |newspaper=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/magazine/stop-the-steal.html |access-date=September 20, 2022 |date=July 19, 2022}}</ref> In a survey by journalists (of the [[Washington Post]]) less than two months before the 2022 congressional election, a "majority of Republicans" in "important battleground" election campaigns, refused "to say they will accept the November election outcome".<ref name="Knox-19-9-22">{{cite news |last1=Knox |first1=Olivier |title=Meet the Republicans who might not accept defeat in November |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/19/meet-republicans-who-might-not-accept-defeat-november/ |access-date=September 22, 2022 |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=September 19, 2022}}</ref> Six key Senate and gubernatorial Republican party nominees refused to commit to accepting the results of the November election: [[Blake Masters]] in Arizona, [[JD Vance]] in Ohio, Rep. [[Ted Budd]] in North Carolina, [[Kelly Tshibaka]] in Alaska, [[Tudor Dixon]] in Michigan and [[Geoff Diehl]] in Massachusetts.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Epstein |first1=Reid |title=Echoing Trump, These Republicans Won't Promise to Accept 2022 |newspaper=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/18/us/politics/trump-republicans-midterm-election-results.html |access-date=September 22, 2022 |date=September 18, 2022}}</ref> While the claim by a losing candidate that they won "despite clear evidence he lost", may have started with Donald Trump after his loss in 2020, during primaries leading up to the November 2022 general election, "candidates across the country have refused to concede—even in races that are not remotely close".<ref name="FOWLER-npr-2-7-22">{{cite news |last1=Fowler |first1=Stephen |title=These candidates lost badly, but now are claiming fraud |url=https://www.npr.org/2022/07/02/1109442956/these-candidates-lost-badly-but-now-are-claiming-fraud |access-date=September 22, 2022 |publisher=NPR |date=2 July 2022}}</ref> This trend has been manifested in the violent [[January 6 United States Capitol attack|January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol]] to prevent the certification of [[Joe Biden]] as president and the hundreds of elected Republican officials throughout the United States that said that the 2020 presidential election was "rigged", some of whom "are running for statewide offices that would oversee future elections, potentially putting them in position to overturn an election in 2024 or beyond".<ref name="Leonhardt-NYT-17-9-22"/> According to [[Yascha Mounk]], "There is the possibility, for the first time in American history, that a legitimately elected president will not be able to take office".<ref name="Leonhardt-NYT-17-9-22"/> In part the phenomenon is international, democracies are struggling in other parts of the world led by the forces of "digital media, cultural change, and economic stagnation in affluent countries".<ref name="Leonhardt-NYT-17-9-22"/> Leonhardt states that "many experts point out that it is still not clear how the country will escape a larger crisis, such as an overturned election, at some point in the coming decade."<ref name="Leonhardt-NYT-17-9-22"/> === Deterioration of other norms === ====Abandonment of campaign debates==== In the 2022 elections observers have noted lack of participation in debates between candidates, and in the "retail politicking" that has been a political "cliché ... for generations" in American politics: pressing the flesh at "diners and state fairs ... town-hall-style meetings ... where citizens get to question their elected leaders and those running to replace them".<ref name="Lerer-19-10-2022">{{cite news |last1=Lerer |first1=Lisa |last2=Ulloa |first2=Jazmine |title=As Campaign Norms Erode, Even Debates Are Under Debate |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/19/us/politics/midterm-campaigns-debates-democracy.html |access-date=October 19, 2022 |newspaper=The New York Times |date=October 19, 2022}}</ref> Replacing these are "safer spaces" for candidates, "partisan news outlets, fund-raisers with supporters, friendly local crowds", as the number of competitive House of Representative districts and "swing voters" grows smaller, and candidates concentrate on mobilizing the party loyalists rather than appealing to undecided voters (appeals touching on compromise and bipartisanship angering party hardliners). Observers see a danger in candidates avoiding those tougher interactions, which cut down on the opportunities for candidates' characters and limitations to be revealed, and for elected officials to be held accountable to those who elected them. For the politicians, it creates an artificial environment where their positions appear uniformly popular and opposing views are angrily denounced, making compromise seem risky.<ref name="Lerer-19-10-2022"/> ====Other norms==== Under the campaign and presidency of Donald Trump, observers (such as political scientist Brendan Nyhan) noted some erosion of political norms and ethics, including: * acceptable background for high level officials. ([[Jeff Sessions]] was rejected by the U.S. Senate in 1986 for a federal judgeship because his history on racial issues was considered to be disqualifying, but served as U.S. attorney general from February 9, 2017, to November 7, 2018.)<ref name="Foran-Atlantic-2016">{{cite magazine |last1=Foran |first1=Clare |title='An Erosion of Democratic Norms in America' |magazine=The Atlantic |date=November 22, 2016 |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/donald-trump-democratic-norms/508469/ |access-date=October 19, 2022}}</ref> * intolerance of criticism<ref name="Foran-Atlantic-2016"/> is evident in statements such as "Trump Threatens White House Protesters With 'Vicious Dogs' and 'Ominous Weapons{{'"}}<ref name="Haberman">{{cite news |last=Haberman |first=Maggie |author-link=Maggie Haberman |title=Trump Threatens White House Protesters With 'Vicious Dogs' and 'Ominous Weapons' |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/30/us/politics/trump-threatens-protesters-dogs-weapons.html |access-date=October 19, 2022 |newspaper=The New York Times |date=May 30, 2020}}</ref> * tolerance for conflicts of interest in government. Public officials who are also businessmen (Donald Trump) accepting money for their business (Trump hotel in Washington) from foreign governments with interests before the United States. ("The Trump hotel in Washington is pitching foreign diplomats on its services, which might violate a clause of the U.S. Constitution that is supposed to ensure that foreign governments can't buy favor with federal officials.")<ref name="Foran-Atlantic-2016"/> *partisan abuse of power. After a Democratic candidate for governor won, Republican majorities in the legislatures of North Carolina, and Wisconsin voted in 2018 to "strip the legitimate powers of newly elected Democratic governors" while the "defeated or outgoing Republican incumbents are still around to sign the bills".<ref name="Packer-corruption-2018">{{cite journal |last1=Packer |first1=George |title=The Corruption of the Republican Party |journal=The Atlantic |date=December 14, 2018 |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/how-did-republican-party-get-so-corrupt/578095/ |access-date=October 19, 2022}}</ref> * Applying the rule of "Because we can". Announced on February 13, 2016, the Republican controlled senate refused to hold hearings on the appointment of [[Merrick Garland]] (a Democratic nominee) for the Supreme Court,<ref name="Cox-20-10-2020"/><ref name="TOTENBERG-2016">{{cite news |last=Totenberg |first=Nina |title=Politics 170-Plus Days And Counting: GOP Unlikely To End Supreme Court Blockade Soon |url=https://www.npr.org/2016/09/06/492857860/173-days-and-counting-gop-unlikely-to-end-blockade-on-garland-nomination-soon |access-date=October 19, 2022 |publisher=NPR |date=September 6, 2016}}</ref> maintaining it was too close to the November 8, 2016 election (almost nine months away at the time), and would deny the American people a "voice" in the selection of the next justice. Four years later, with a Republican now president, a ceremony was held for the nomination of a conservative justice for Supreme Court ([[Amy Coney Barrett]]) on September 26, 2020, a little more than one month (38 days) before Election Day, with [[Mitch McConnell]] claiming, "I think it's very important that we have nine Justices."<ref name="Cox-20-10-2020">{{cite news |last1=Cox |first1=Chelsey |title=Fact check: Senate Republicans moving to confirm Trump's Supreme Court nominee but blocked Obama's |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/20/fact-check-gop-senators-blocked-nomination-merrick-garland-2016/5916555002/ |access-date=October 19, 2022 |newspaper=USA Today |date=20 October 2020}}</ref><ref name="Green-2020">{{cite journal |last1=Green |first1=Emma |title=How the Senate Stopped Pretending |journal=The Atlantic |date=October 15, 2020 |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/10/amy-coney-barrett-senate-hearing-fail/616744/ |access-date=October 19, 2022}}</ref> === Antiquated institutions === The US doesn't recommend its own political system to its allies creating new constitutions.<ref>{{Cite news |title=America's electoral system gives the Republicans advantages over Democrats |newspaper=The Economist |url=https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/07/12/americas-electoral-system-gives-the-republicans-advantages-over-democrats |access-date=2023-02-06 |issn=0013-0613}}</ref> [[Democratic backsliding in the United States|Democratic backsliding]] concerns have led to some academics on the other hand to warn that thanks in part to the rulings of the Supreme Court that exacerbated the flaws in these ancient institutions, the U.S. is already a one-party state, and no longer meets the minimum requirements to be considered a democracy.<ref name=":14">Huq, Aziz Z. (January 2022). "The Supreme Court and the Dynamics of Democratic Backsliding". ''The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science''. '''699''' (1): 50–65. [[Doi (identifier)|doi]]:10.1177/00027162211061124. [[ISSN (identifier)|ISSN]] 0002-7162. [[S2CID (identifier)|S2CID]] 247499952.</ref> ===Suggested reforms=== {{See also|Campaign finance reform in the United States|Electoral reform in the United States|Health care reform in the United States|Marijuana law reform in the United States|Tort reform in the United States}} ====Electing Supreme Court justices==== With an implementation of [[Term limits in the United States|term limits]] and holding elections for [[Supreme court|Supreme Court justices]], the United States could solve the contentious battle for when Supreme Court members unexpectedly die. [[Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937|Packing the Supreme Court proposals]] would fade away if an election was going to decide the outcome. Thirty-three states already elect their [[state supreme court]]s. William Watkins Jr., a [[constitution]]al [[scholar]] from the [[Independent Institute]] on [[National Public Radio]], stated his proposal for 8 to 10-year one-time term limits, he also said justices are supposed to be like umpires calling balls and strikes in the game but are acting more like [[Coach (sport)|coaches]] tinkering with starting lineups, and calling [[Hit and run (baseball)|hit and runs]]. Local [[district attorney]]s and [[Sheriffs in the United States|county sheriffs]] are elected<ref>{{cite web |url=https://ignitenational.org/blog/local-politics-101-the-role-of-a-district-attorney#:~:text=Is%20a%20District%20Attorney%20elected,chief%20executive%20of%20the%20jurisdiction |title=Local Politics 101: The Role of a District Attorney }}</ref> and so could Supreme Court justices. The [[United States Senate]] used to be appointed by [[State legislature (United States)|state legislatures]] before the [[Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|17th Amendment]] was passed in 1913 for them to be elected. A [[Second Constitutional Convention of the United States|second constitutional convention]] of the states to [[Amendments to the Constitution of the United States|amend the Constitution]] could be a way for this reform to proceed.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.npr.org/2010/06/28/128168260/op-ed-supreme-court-justices-should-be-elected |title=Op-Ed: Supreme Court Justices Should be Elected |work=NPR }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/should-we-restructure-the-supreme-court/ |title=Should we restructure the Supreme Court? |date=March 2, 2020 }}</ref> <ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=2817 |title=A Role for the People in Judicial Selection | William J. Watkins, Jr }}</ref> <ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/17th-amendment#:~:text=Prior%20to%20its%20passage%2C%20senators,senators%20to%20six%2Dyear%20terms |title=17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators (1913) |date=September 15, 2021 }}</ref> <ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.termlimits.com/progress/ |title=Term Limits Convention Progress Map |date=June 16, 2018 }}</ref> ====Term limits for congress==== {{main|Term limits in the United States|Second Constitutional Convention of the United States}} [[File:Average Age of Congress.webp|thumb|upright=1.35|Average Age of Congress]] [[File:Percentage of Congress Over the Age of 70.webp|thumb|upright=1.35|Percentage of Congress over the age of 70]] [[Term limit]]s for [[Congressmen|members of Congress]] was a movement that gained a lot of traction in the early 1990s. 23 State Governments passed legislation that term limited US Congress representatives from each respective state. The [[Supreme court decisions|Supreme Court decision]] [[U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton]] in 1995 invalidated the term limit legislation found in those 23 states. [[Newt Gingrich]]'s [[Contract with America]] promised legislation in the first 100 days for a [[Article Five of the United States Constitution|constitutional amendment]] for term limits. However, the Term Limits Constitutional Amendment bill did not pass the 2/3 majority to move the bill forward and only passed with a simple majority of 227–204. It would have limited the House and Senate to 12 years total, six terms in the House, and two terms in the Senate.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/104th-congress/house-report/67/1 |title=H. Rept. 104-67 - TERM LIMITS FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://ballotpedia.org/Term_limits_in_the_United_States |title=Term limits in the United States }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=29 March 1995 |title=Final Vote Results for Roll Call 277 |url=https://clerk.house.gov/evs/1995/roll277.xml |website=Office of the Clerk}}. </ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/779/ |title=U.S. Term Limits, Inc. V. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) }}</ref> Today, [[U.S. Term Limits]] campaigns for 34 states to call for a [[Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution]] to create a Term Limits amendment.
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to Niidae Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
Encyclopedia:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Search
Search
Editing
Politics of the United States
(section)
Add topic