.

The US is rated by the Economist Intelligence Unit as a “flawed democracy” and has been for the past 8 years. It is “flawed” because Americans don’t seem to care much for democracy – rule by the people, for the people – because that’s not exactly the way it works.

The reality is "rule by the elite 10% of the population" who possess 70% of the nation’s wealth and the power to influence the political class to act in their favour.

And, as we saw in the 2016 presidential election, Hilary Clinton received nearly 3 million more votes than Donald Trump, but Trump won the election. The votes of 3 million Americans did not count because the president is not elected by the people. They only elect the members of an electoral college who, in turn, elect the president.

This complex, labyrinthine electoral system has so far rewarded 5 presidents who had lost the popular vote (Adams, Hayes, Harrison, G. W. Bush, & Trump).

According to a Pew Research poll last month, 63% of Americans would prefer the winner of the popular vote to be the president. But there are wide partisan differences :

- 80% of Democrats are for the popular vote

- 53% of Republicans are against & 46% for the popular vote

Democracy is on the wane throughout the world.

Trump or Harris, the battle of the gods (the Titans, the older generation of gods, against the Olympians, the younger generation) is about to begin.

Which one will the fountain bless ?

.

Hi Banjo

The Economist Intelligence Unit rates the USA as a flawed democracy, but this is not because of "rule by the elite 10% of the population". Nor is it because it sometimes does not deliver government to the party or presidential candidate with the most votes – all voting systems based on geographical constituencies sometimes do this, including ours (in 1988 Labor won 51% of the vote after preferences but still didn’t win government).

The reason the USA has slipped from being categorised a “full democracy” to a “flawed democracy” since 2016 is mainly due to a decline in political culture and the functioning of government. Americans don’t trust elected officials and see them as corrupt. The electorate is highly polarised and support for democracy has eroded.

You can read The Economist’s article here (it’s behind a paywall, but non-subscribers get limited access).

http://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2024/03/21/why-america-is-a-flawed-democracy

This is particular worrying because we seem to be heading in the same direction, though we are not yet so far down the track and rate comparatively well. Australia is ranked as a “full democracy”, but its rating has slipped in recent years.

.

Dear Rhian,

.

Thank you for your comment.

Yes, I am aware of the Economist Intelligence Unit's political culture explanation for classifying the US as a “flawed democracy.”

The American political scientists Gabriel Almond and Sydney Verba identified three types of political culture in their 1963 treatise :

1. parochial, in which citizens have neither knowledge of nor interest in politics and are only indistinctly aware of the existence of a central government

2. subject, in which citizens largely obey but participate little, seeing themselves not as participants in the political process but as subjects of the government

3. participant, in which citizens understand and take part in politics and voluntary associations

It seems to me that Almond and Verba’s core idea was that a “full democracy” is a society where subject and parochial attitudes provide ballast to an essentially participant culture.

The evolution of the political culture in the US over the past 8 years has seen a drastic reduction in participant culture to the extent that democracy is no longer “rule by the people, for the people”.

Political power has been monopolised by a small elite who control the economy and exercise a large and important influence on society in general.

American democracy has been downgraded to "rule by the elite 10% of the population" who possess 70% of the nation’s wealth and the power to influence the political class to act in their favour, and not necessarily in the public interest.

.

I would not describe America as a "Flawed Democracy", rather its an "Illusion Democracy", where the democratic process is controlled by a privileged power elite for their benefit, and our of course, that goes without saying. This power elite allows a pretence of democracy to operate in narrow confines, where subservient politicians, and only subservient politicians, tinker around to give an illusion that there is some kind of democratic process at work for the common good. Common good, how ridiculous, who thought that nonsense up. If the people ever demand (a nasty word in some peoples book) true democracy then the power elite will have their military forces take care of that terrible kind of insurrection! How dare the people think they deserve to run the democratic process, the power elite tell us they are doing a perfectly good job at it, an it does not require interference by the riff-raff or their mates the great unwashed! Same applies in Australia.

"(in 1988 Labor won 51% of the vote after preferences but still didn’t win government)."

Wrong:

* there was no federal election in 1988.
* you're thinking of the 1990 election.
* but you got the winners the wrong way around
* the Liberals won the TPP vote 50.1% to 49.9% but Labor held onto power because of a strategy of targeting marginal seats and also due to a gerrymander against the Liberal electorates.
* that is, they realised that winning the majority of the seats was the game not winning the majority of the votes.

Ditto USA.

On TV the other night,

Elbridge Gerry a founding father of American democracy and Governor of Massachusetts, ha ha, having drawn the district boundaries in the state, one resembling a grotesque salamander, which was designed to see to it that dear old Elbridge's Federalist Party retained power, his action eventually become known as the gerrymander!