Can electoralism ever produce a transfer of power to the working-class in a two-party system, or are corrupt political parties that will never allow change into power, elections dominated by corporate interests, and voter suppression the problems? According to the theory of democratization, the wealthy autocrat class only willingly surrenders power in times of extreme economic recessions when a revolution by the working class is feared.Why then, is the oligarchy in developed nations such as the United States less responsive to the needs of the working class during times of economic trouble? When this fear of revolution fails, and elections remain unresponsive to the working class, plutocrats in developed nations also “buy off” the working class to prevent revolutions — in the form of super-PACS, corrupt independent party control and voter suppression.
This quiet elite takeover of elections undermines the ability of the working-class to actually transfer government power to themselves. In fair, democratic elections, electoralism works. However, the corrupt, two-party system and Citizens United prevent electoralism from resulting in a transfer of power to the working class.
The fundamental problems are an unresponsive two-party system that will never allow progressives calling for change into power, elections dominated by corporate interests, and voter suppression. Furthermore, a multiparty system must be explored.Plurality systems lean their fiscal policy towards more targeted programs and proportional systems towards more universalistic programs such as universal healthcare. A two-party system does not represent the 36% of independents, nor does it represent progressives.
Elites have always modified endogenously economic and political institutions to enrich themselves and survive in power. It is only when specific circumstances arise when inclusive institutions may develop. However, the problem lies not in voting itself, but in the structure surrounding the voting system — the two-party system.
Democracy (demo-cratia) — power by the people. A minimalist conception of democracy is an electoral democracy, but a maximalist requirement of democracy must reflect in policy outcomes. A minimalist concept holds to in order to avoid violent conflict resolution, the possibility of changing governments is allowed through voting. But how legitimate is the United States’ own electoral democracy? Does voter suppression corrupt the will of the people? Is our electoral implementation fair — free of violence, threats, or voter fraud? Do democracies even have higher standards of living/income?
According to existing work, changes in democracy do not correlate with changes in income — there is no causal effect of income on democracy.
Electoralism Occurs When Ruling Class Extend Franchise and Give Into Poor People’s Policy Needs
According to the theory of democratization, the wealthy autocrat class only willingly surrenders power in times of extreme economic recessions when a revolution by the working class is feared. During times of extreme economic inequality, such as exists in autocracies, the poor can mount a revolution and the elite can establish a democracy thereby extending the franchise. Such was the case during the French Revolution when the peasants violently stormed the Bastille. Democratizations usually follow coups.
While during times of democracy the elite can mount a coup to transfer power to themselves and produce favorable upper-tax bracket policies.
Why then, is the oligarchy in developed nations such as the United States less responsive to the needs of the working class during times of economic trouble? This is because more equal societies are less likely to democratize and the poor are more likely to be content with redistribution. This is because the opportunity cost of a revolution is increased. American society has a higher political efficacy and faith in electoralism — which is actually undermined by party elites and voter suppression.
Unresponsive Oligarchies Buy Off Democratization
When this fear of revolution fails, and elections remain unresponsive to the working class, autocratic societies (like Singapore and Saudi Arabia) remain nondemocratic forever when the elite buy off the poor. While other countries such as Chile and Argentine, triggered by economic downturns, alternate between regime types.
Plutocrats in developed nations also “buy off” the working class to prevent revolutions — in the way of party control and voter suppression. In less extreme cases, where a de-jure democracy is in place, the vote can be suppressed by the oligarchy and party bosses. The United States’ oligarchy — in the country with the highest inequality among developed nations — simply suppresses working-class movements through independent party organizations such as the DNC and RNC to prevent a working-class takeover of the government. These parties can even legally pick a primary nominee without holding a single election.
Or as was the case in the 2016 presidential election, they can rig the election as confessed by Donna Brazille and a court that conceded the DNC had the right to rig the 2016 primary against Sanders. Is an election democratic when a candidate’s campaign gains control over the party’s finances and strategy a year before the election? Is it fair and free when a candidate gets leaked debate questions and her Clinton Foundation donors control the democrat’s media?
So does the United States have a true electoral democracy in the sense that transferring government power is allowed? Or has the independent party control of the oligarchy powered by Super-PACS and voter suppression corrupted the process and prevented a transfer of power put forth by electoralist movements such as Our Revolution?
A Corrupt Two-Party System Fails Us
The problem isn’t electoralism, it’s the two-party system sustained by voter suppression and super-PAC funded candidates in independent party organizations that can favor whatever nominee they want.
It is a serious party problem when the DNC tells a court that they are a “private corporation” with no obligation to follow their own rules because the primary election belongs to the party elites not voters.
Polling site closures and 6-hour-long lines also seriously contest the legitimacy of our democracy.
Yet the problem still isn’t electoralism, it’s a corrupt, undemocratic two-party system that influences elections through super-PACS and candidate funded media. This quiet elite takeover of elections undermines the ability of the working-class to actually transfer government power to themselves under the theory of democratization. In normal, democratic elections, electoralism works. However, the corrupt two-party system and Citizens United prevent electoralism from resulting in a transfer of power to the working class in fear of revolution. In a de-jure representative democracy like the United States, elite are just covertly “buying off” elections to prevent a transfer of power just as autocracies do.
The Real Solution to Transferring Power Back to Americans
Electoral democracies are systems that avoid violent conflict resolution by fairly and freely allowing elections through voting. When electoralism fails to produce a transfer of power even under dire economic circumstances, the fairness of the institutions conducting the elections is called into question. The problems are fundamentally an unresponsive two-party system that will never allow progressives calling for change into power, elections dominated by corporate interests, and voter suppression.
The solution isn’t throwing away the liberal democracy — it’s fixing the underlying foundational problems of voter suppression, Citizens United, and corrupt parties that aren’t resulting in a transfer of power. A liberal democracy has to be guaranteed by universal suffrage and freedom in electoral implementation with no violence or voter suppression plaguing it.
Furthermore, a multiparty system must be explored.Plurality systems lean their fiscal policy towards more targeted programs and proportional systems towards more universalistic programs such as universal healthcare. A two-party system does not represent the 36% of independents, nor does it represent progressives. However, there exists a tradeoff between the accountability of a two-party (plurality) system and representation of a proportional system. Wherein a proportional system lacks accountability — no one will discipline a politician if they disappoint even just 1% of a group — they will just lose one member. Not like under plurality rule. While in a plurality system a candidate can win by 51%, but who will represent the remaining 49% of the constituency?
The solution isn’t retreating into a 15 member Lenin book club and dreaming about a morally reprehensible “revolution,” it’s overturning Citizens United, fixing the corruption of the two party system, and eradicating voter suppression.
Leave a Reply