Is America Really A True Democracy?

The United States is often described as one of the world’s oldest and strongest democracies. From Super Bowl commercials to eighth-grade civics class posters, everyone seems to think of the nation as one built by the people and for the people. Politicians from the left, right, and center alike praise America’s democratic foundation as the key to its success over the past 250 years. However, the truth is that America is not, and never was intended to be, a true democracy.

To understand this, we must consider what a democracy even is. The word originates from the Greek dēmokratía, which means “rule by the people.” Since this verbiage is nebulous, the term has taken on various definitions over the course of history as political theorists have reinterpreted it. Today, however, democracy is understood to refer to a system of government in which the general public exercises political power, though even this can manifest in varying ways. Systems labeled as “democratic” can range from liberal constitutional republics, such as the United States, to illiberal populist regimes, like Turkey. As such, haphazardly throwing around the word democracy can be a sloppy way to define a country’s governing structure. It’s essential to assess the varying degrees to which democratic ideals can sway the political sphere. 

For the United States, nowhere in its Constitution does the word “democracy” appear. This omission was by design: the Founding Fathers, wary of mob rule almost as much as tyranny, intentionally avoided establishing a direct democracy. James Madison, for example, cautioned against “tyranny of the majority” and believed that direct rule by the people would lead to political turmoil. Alexander Hamilton was also distrustful of the masses, advocating for a system that would buffer the federal government from excessive popular influence. After much deliberation, the framers agreed upon a constitutional republic to balance popular input with provisions of checks and balances, separations of power, and inalienable rights. While it is important to slam the brakes on rapid democratic change to protect the rights of minorities, as it burgeoned into one of the strongest countries this world has ever known, the United States took the idea of eschewing democracy to a whole new extreme.  

Even from the beginning, the American system limited who had access to power, as voting was initially restricted to white, land-owning men. As a result, campaign managers were more beholden to donors. The Electoral College itself was designed to filter the selection of the president through a layer of electors, many of whom are technically not required to vote according to the popular will. To this day, America’s democratic deficiencies continue to make it seem entirely out of touch with the populace. In recent decades, the gap between public opinion and policy outcomes has grown wider than ever. For example, while a majority of Americans have come to support stronger gun control laws and universal background checks, federal policy has failed to follow suit. Furthermore, a 2014 study from Princeton University found that the average citizen has virtually no impact on U.S. policy outcomes, while economic elites and organized business interests have far more sway. In other words, policy in America tends to cater to the preferences of the affluent and powerful rather than ordinary citizens. With the 2010 Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court ruled that political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment. This allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections, diluting the political influence of the common people, who don’t have millions to invest in their favorite candidate or policy aim. As a result, campaign managers continue to give more importance to the needs of donors than voters.

Even presidential elections have failed to address the popular will. In five presidential elections—1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016—candidates who lost the national popular vote won the presidency because of the Electoral College. In all of these cases, the outcome led many to believe it undermined public faith in the legitimacy of the democratic process and exposed how the system favors certain states and populations over others. Its “equal representation” model gives rural, often less diverse states disproportionate power. For example, a senator from Vermont represents fewer people than even a city council member in Los Angeles. Yet, both senators from Vermont have the same power as those from California in confirming Supreme Court justices, ratifying treaties, and passing federal laws. That means a small and conservative minority from a rural area can hamper policies backed by a national majority. This undue representation undermines the purported American doctrine of “one person, one vote.”

These barriers to democracy can also be weaponized for racist or unjust purposes. From poll taxes and literacy tests during the Jim Crow era to some modern voter ID laws, America has implemented numerous “election security” strategies that disenfranchise certain communities. These actions show how far from an inclusive, participatory democracy the U.S. can sometimes be.

Additionally, partisan gerrymandering, a practice where political parties manipulate district boundaries to entrench power, has posed threats to democratic systems. In states like Wisconsin and North Carolina, Republicans have drawn legislative maps so disjointed that they retain control of the legislature no matter what. This kind of electoral configuration makes people think they have a stake in the game when, in reality, it’s rigged in favor of one party.

And perhaps the most undemocratic, the Supreme Court itself is unelected, and its members serve for life. Justices are appointed by presidents who may not have won the popular vote and confirmed by senators representing a minority of the population. Once on the bench, they have the power to invalidate laws passed by elected legislatures and reinterpret constitutional rights in ways that can shake up American life even more than those in other elected positions. Now, it’s not correct to say that these Supreme Court justices are corrupt. In fact, they are often highly qualified and typically come to an unbiased conclusion. However, the fact that the president, rather than the people, chooses the justices can psychologically, or even knowingly, make them more loyal and favorable to the president.

To say that America is a democracy confuses ideals with institutions. Although the country aspires to strictly follow the democratic values of liberty, equality, and civic engagement, its actual structure sometimes gets in the way of these aims. This doesn’t mean that the United States should function as a direct democracy; rather, there should be a call to recognize the nuance in what can come across as a rigid term with no historical grounds. Let’s tell it like it is: the U.S. has a hybrid system that is democratic in some ways and oligarchic in others. Until something changes, America will never be a pure democracy, and it will continue to spend more time celebrating its ideals than actually practicing it.