Some people will argue the Founding
Fathers created the United States as a republic and not as a
democracy. This argument is often used as a defense for the electoral
college. I think using this argument is flawed, as it doesn’t look
at the whole picture. It lacks the necessary historical context. When
the United States was founded, it wasn’t the average person that
wanted freedom from the British (source).
In fact, ⅓ of the colonists were still wanted to remain part of
Britain (loyalists). Independence was sought by the elite who wanted
to pay less taxes.
This group of elites didn’t want a
country run by the common person--far from it. They wanted a country
run by them! So they did just that. They
restricted voting to adult, white, land-owning men. Democracy was a
dirty word to the wealthy elite, not to mention not in their
financial interests. So, they created something else, a republic.
At
its birth, the United States was not a democratic nation—far from
it. The very word "democracy" had pejorative overtones,
summoning up images of disorder, government by the unfit, even mob
rule. In practice, moreover, relatively few of the nation's
inhabitants were able to participate in elections: among the excluded
were most African Americans, Native Americans, women, men who had not
attained their majority, and white males who did not own land.
John
Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence and later president,
wrote in 1776 that no good could come from enfranchising more
Americans:
Depend
upon it, Sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of
controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter
the qualifications of voters; there will be no end to it. New claims
will arise; women will demand the vote; lads from 12 to 21 will think
their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a
farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of
state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and
prostrate all ranks to one common level.
In the years since, we have moved away
from the original restrictions to voting. Adult citizens can now
vote. But we still are a republic, not a true representative
democracy. Still today, the wealthy and big corporations decide
elections with effectively unlimited campaign contributions. So while
all citizens can vote, the elite still determine the outcome of
elections. Perhaps, abolishing the vestiges of this system is the
logical next step in our countries progression.
But on the other hand, things aren’t
that simple. There are good aspects to being a republic. Being a
republic is conducive to having a constitution, a bill of rights, and
the rule of law. In a true democracy all laws a determined by the
majority, who can use this power to oppose a minority. A Republic can
stop this, at least in theory.
But in some ways, I question the
validity of this argument. Imagine a fictitious person named Jeff,
and a Majority of people in Jeff’s country want Jeff dead. If these
persecutors want him dead, chances are someone will kill him. And
perhaps a sympathetic law enforcement officer will look the other
way. Or if the issue goes to court, a jury of 12 will likely not be
able to convict him if the majority of people on jury wanted Jeff
dead. See, even though a Republic “provides” legal protection
against a majority, maybe it doesn't really.
Perhaps this last example was a little
contrived, but really, it's not too different from some events that
actually happened (example).
Perhaps the bigger issue with a Republic isn’t that it doesn’t
work, it’s when it does work. Take the 2016 election. Donald Trump
won the election but didn’t win the popular vote. In this case, the
will of a minority is imposed on the majority. Now I’m not saying
this because I hate Donald Trump, I also think Hillary Clinton was an
objectively bad candidate, but that is a story for another post. What
I am saying is perhaps we should look to our roots again and
determine what is good and should be kept and what isn’t so good
and should be changed.
