Ongoing concerns include lack of representation in the
U.S. territories and the
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
Senate and the
Electoral College,
"first-past-the-post" voting,
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. In an August 31, 2022, poll by
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". A 2020 study, "Global Satisfaction with Democracy" by the Bennett Institute for Public Policy at the University of Cambridge, found that 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. Concerns about the American political system include how well it represents and serves the interests of Americans. They include: • underrepresentation of certain groups (
women,
Black people,
Latin Americans,
Native Americans,
LGBT people, and those under 60 years old); • complete failure to represent other groups (citizens living in
territories, in
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;
Underrepresentation by gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation Observations of historical trends and current governmental demographics have raised concerns about the equity of
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. Descriptive representation is noted to be beneficial because of its symbolic representative benefits as a source of emotional identification with one's representatives. 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. Serving as a
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. Other minority groups, such as the
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. 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.
Race and ethnicity (2021–2023) (2021–2023)
African Americans 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. 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. Despite also constituting 15% of the population in at least a quarter of House districts, Latino representation in Congress has not correspondingly increased. 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
federally recognized tribal nations, and it has been used as a case study of representation. Studies of bills relating to
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. and
Democracy Index (The Economist) — "show an erosion of American democracy since 2016".
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). 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" 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). Some academic researchers and
Oxfam 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. 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". 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. Nobel Prize–winning economist
Paul Krugman wrote: 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.
Gerrymandering Gerrymandering is the practice of shaping the boundaries of
electoral districts 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. 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), 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". 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. 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.
New Democrats advocated for
neoliberal policies including financial
deregulation and
free trade, which is seen to have shifted the Democratic Party rightward on economic issues. Since the early 2010s, the party has shifted significantly to the left on social, cultural, and religious issues. According to the
Pew Research Center, members of both parties who have unfavorable opinions of the opposing party have doubled since 1994, while those who have very unfavorable opinions of the opposing party are at record highs as of 2022.
Concerns about the refusal to accept defeat 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—to refuse to accept defeat in an election". 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". 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. 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". This trend has been manifested in the violent
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". 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. • intolerance of criticism • 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.") • 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, 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."
Antiquated institutions Democratic backsliding concerns have led to some academics to warn that Supreme Court rulings, among other factors, have exacerbated the flaws in American institutions, creating a
one-party state that longer meets the minimum requirements to be considered a democracy.
Suggested reforms Electing Supreme Court justices With an implementation of
term limits and holding elections for
Supreme Court justices, the United States could solve the contentious battle for when Supreme Court members unexpectedly die.
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 courts. William Watkins Jr., a
constitutional
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
coaches tinkering with starting lineups, and calling
hit and runs. Local
district attorneys and
county sheriffs are elected and so could Supreme Court justices. The
United States Senate used to be appointed by
state legislatures before the
17th Amendment was passed in 1913 for them to be elected. A
second constitutional convention of the states to
amend the Constitution could be a way for this reform to proceed.
Term limits in the U.S. Congress A political movement around
term limits for
members of Congress gained considerable traction during the early 1990s. Twenty-three state governments passed legislation that term-limited congressional representatives from their respective state. The
Supreme Court decision U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (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
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. 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. ==See also==