America is Not a “Democracy”

[and, “Capitalism” is Not A Form Of Government]
Despite Everything You’ve Been Told]

INTRODUCTION

The following are a random sampling, from a single day’s “news” articles, referring to democracy in America:
…American democracy, in particular, is in an increasingly fragile position.
…72% of Americans thought the Capitol rioters posed a threat to democracy.
… how healthy America’s democracy is today.
… How healthy is US democracy one year after Jan. 6?…
… despite American democracy’s perilous situation, …
… because of American democracy’s continued success.
… part of an ongoing threat to democracy,,,
… Republicans privileged partisan popularity and influence over facts and democracy.
… a troubling sign for democracy.
… a major threat to American democracy.
… policies that threaten to undermine a multiracial democracy…
… attacking the seat of democracy…

All this angst about the “threat to American democracy” is unwarranted. How can something that does not exist be in any appreciable danger? America is not a democracy and never has been. What is in a “perilous situation” is; the belief in the historical fiction that America was founded as a democratic-republic in the first place. My conservative acquaintances like to say, no, America is not a democracy, it is a Republic. Or, a Representative-Democracy, they might say. Or, Democratic-Republic. But, those are only semantic differences, and merely smear lip-gloss on a sacred pig.

I want to believe that some of the folks who offer those alternate descriptions of America’s form of government or sincere, but ill-informed. But, I also believe there is another cadre of political operatives who throw those terms out like a magician uses misdirection, to divert the public’s attention from the underlying truth. America, we are repeatedly told, was founded as a Republic with Democratically chosen Representatives who were to govern according to the will of a majority of their constituents. To enact policies favored by a majority of American voters was to be Congress’s mandate and that legislation was to become the “law of the land”. Sounds like a wonderful, democratic system… but America has never operated like that.

Manifold recent events highlight how little control the majority of American voters actually possess and how most Federal legislation totally disregards the will of that majority. Opinion polls, taken over many years, consistently find that, a majority believes some gun regulations are necessary and should be enacted. A 2018 poll found that, 79% of Americans believe that a woman’s right to abortion, as protected by Roe v. Wade, should remain legal. A wide majority thinks there should be reasonable limits on political campaign donations and election spending.

A majority of Americans believe the highest incomes should pay higher taxes than the lowest. The majority favors reducing our military spending. A majority in America would like to see more tax dollars spent on highways, bridges and infrastructure. Most voters would end tax subsidies to oil, gas, pharmaceutical and other giant corporations. Why are none of these issues governed by the will of the majority? Why, in fact, is so much government policy the polar opposite of the majority’s views? The simple truth is this: America is not a democracy.

THE FOUNDING FATHERS: angry, caucasian, male property owners

Contrary to what is taught in our schools and regurgitated endlessly by politicians, commencement speakers and the paid talkers on cable TV news channels, regarding the nature of America’s political structure; the functional reality is an altogether different animal. America is not a democracy. It’s not a Democratic-Republic, either. Call it systematic brainwashing, magical thinking, the “big lie”, mass delusion or thought control, but our often repeated conceptions about America’s political system are not supported by empirical data.

Many refuse to analyze the reality of American government, and respond much as Alfalfa so eloquently put it, “Say it ain’t so, Spanky!”

We Americans have been thoroughly indoctrinated with a comprehensive regimen of artfully crafted disinformation. Or, by their more commonly understood names, we’ve been fed propaganda & brainwashed by parents, teachers, historians and political operatives from our earliest days. Since, as it has been said, “the victors write the history”, one might wonder who those victors are. Beginning in our earliest primary school classes, we are made to memorize, and with hands on hearts, mindlessly recite the “Pledge of Allegiance” once each school day. “I pledge allegiance to the flag… and to the republic for which it stands… with liberty and justice for all.”

If America’s reverentially lauded, “founding fathers” ever wanted a truly democratic or republican government, they did not write a Constitution to achieve that result. What the 1787 convention of all male, all Caucasian, mostly Protestant, wealthy, property-owners and merchants – the landed gentry of their day – crafted, was a framework for governing that had just enough features to persuade citizens it was meant to be a ”Republic”, but in the final analysis, reserved virtual veto power for the well-to-do members of society over any actions by the “unwashed” majority that threatened their property, wealth and political power. In no way is the government described by the U.S. Constitution, as originally written and ratified, a “Democracy”. It has not become one in the 230 plus years since then, either. A more accurate label for the form of government America’s founders fabricated would be a “representative plutocracy”.

Like the Emperor’s new cloths, Americans have been conditioned, since the country’s founding, to proclaim that America is cloaked in a well-tailored, beautiful, “democratic”, “free” society and anyone who can’t see that is an outright fool, a liar or worse, a traitor. Think I’m being overly dramatic? Too critical or just plain wrong? Let’s look at the invisible “cloth” the “Founding” weavers threaded in their Independence Hall loom – not through the eyes of fawning courtiers – but through the innocent eyes of the little boy who exclaims, “the Emperor is naked”.

UNDEMOCRATIC BY DESIGN: democracy in name only

Democracy, in theory, is a system of government where policy is decided by the will of the majority, and each law-abiding member of that society has an equal vote. This was not a new idea in 1787; members of the Constitutional Convention were well aware that most previous attempts to establish and maintain a democratic form of government had failed. Still, the age of enlightenment sparked a hope that educated men could rule themselves without a king or emperor or dictator to call the shots. So, they settled on a compromise to true democracy by declaring the new government was to be a republic, with representatives chosen through a democratic process. Thus, from this first decision as to form, the “founders” put a layer of bureaucracy between the majority and their new government.

The framers of the Constitution understood that majority rule could be dangerous to a minority’s security, to individual freedoms and private property; if all power were put in the hands of the majority, without insuring certain rights and protections for minorities.
• Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments, the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from the acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents. — James Madison, Letter to Thomas Jefferson (1788-10-17)
The enlightenment generation that drafted the Constitution, students of the philosophical musings of John Locke, Baron de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, David Hume, Adam Smith, Immanuel Kant, Thomas Paine and others, believed that core principles in the “pursuit of happiness” were the freedom to procure and hold property and the sanctity of contracts. Jefferson modified Locke’s phrase concerning man’s natural rights, i.e., “life, liberty and pursuit of property” in writing the Declaration of Independence. They were fearful the majority – farmers, tradesmen, the poor and middle-classes – might threaten the assets held by a minority, specifically, the minority including the wealthy property owners who drafted the Constitution. So, to protect the “pursuit of property”, they embedded permanent safeguards into the new design.

James Madison, considered by many as the primary author of the U.S. Constitution and, later, America’s 4th President, expressed these thoughts:

“There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong.”
“In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority.”

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and our 3rd U.S. President, was more forthright in his opinions on democracy:

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the Will Of The Majority is in all cases To Prevail, that will To Be Rightful Must Be Reasonable; that The Minority Possess Their Equal Rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the Majority Who Participate.”

The misogynistic phrase, “one man, one vote” is often used in describing the concept of a democratic political system. But, the original Constitution didn’t explicitly specify that members of society were even eligible to vote in this new republic of liberty and democracy; and prohibited citizens from voting directly for the highest offices in their “democratic-republic”. What it does specify is; Representatives to the Federal Congress shall be chosen by “the People of the several States” under rules established by each of the States. Then, to make sure the states didn’t do something stupid, like declaring universal suffrage, the Constitution gives the specific formula for those voting for federal officers thusly, “…Electors… shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature”. And, the number of Representatives each state could send to the federal Congress as; “…determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons… excluding Indians… three fifths of all other Persons.”

Not exactly the straight-forward definition of, “one man, one vote”. Even for their own representative to the new Federal Congress. Since none of the 13 colonies allowed women to vote or hold office, to cast a ballot in 1787, one must first of all, be a male person; must meet the “Qualifications requisite” for each State’s legislature, so, they must be of a certain age (and, many states only allowed property owners to vote); must be a “free Persons”; must not be an indigenous, native American or one of those “all other Persons”, undefined, but which was understood by all to mean, “African slaves”.

Apparently, even those qualifications were deemed insufficient to guarantee wealth was protected. As written in 1787, even those “free Persons” meeting the requisite qualifications would not be entitled to vote directly for Senators, Presidents or Federal Judges. Those offices were removed from the direct democratic control of the majority. Instead, State legislatures were to appoint U.S. Senators and designate “Electors” to choose the President, by way of a totally novel, undemocratic mechanism called, “the Electoral College”. Finally, only that “Electorally” chosen Chief Executive Officer would be allowed to seat the final arbiters of law, the supreme justices of the land. After the initial discussion in Article 1 about qualifications of “Electors” and the Electoral College, voting is not mentioned again in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Not until the 14th Amendment does Congress suggest anyone has a “right” to vote. The Constitution established a democratic-republic in name only.

THE UNDEMOCRATIC CONGRESS: democratic facade

In their effort to make the new government appear more like a representative democracy, the Constitution, supposedly, constructs an edifice resting on three equal pillars; the Legislature, Executive and Judicial branches. In theory, the three branches of this new government were to be equally powerful, with each wielding procedural mechanisms to check or balance excesses attempted by the other branches. That core theory, first proposed by the French philosopher, Montesquieu, of a triumvirate designed to regulate itself due to equal authorities and man’s ambitious, self-serving nature, is continually heralded as another example of the U.S. Constitution’s innovative approach to republican government. But is it really? Or does it result in yet another avenue for minority control?

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If Men Were Angels, No Government Would Be Necessary. If Angels Were To Govern Men, Neither External Nor Internal Controls On Government Would Be Necessary.
–– Federalist #51 (most probably James Madison)

The secretive Philadelphia cabal, believing that the Legislative branch, with the only representatives selected directly by voters, held the most potential to usurp powers of the other branches; burdened the first leg of their three-legged government stool, the only leg bearing any semblance to democracy, under an immediate disadvantage. Rather than one controlling authority as found in the other two branches, the “Congress” is itself divided into two distinct, wholly independent chambers. The House of Representatives, as defined in the Constitution, was the only segment of this new government conforming, even though imperfectly, to the “representative-democracy” concept. It’s members were to be elected directly by white male citizens that met the requirements to vote in each state.

Members of the Senate, conversely, were to be selected by the state legislatures; always hotbeds of political and ideological power struggles, where influence and political connections play a more important role than democratic preference. This method of choosing Senators persisted for over 125 years, before the process was modified in 1913 by the 17th Amendment, which provides for the direct election of Senators by the “qualified” voters.

In American History classes, the point is made that the House of Representatives was granted the supposedly crucial, “power of the purse”. All spending bills must originate in the lower House of Congress. Great. Except, before any money could actually be dispersed, the spending bill must also be approved by the other chamber of Congress, the totally undemocratic Senate. But then, as a further check on the majority will, that bill must be acceptable to and signed by the Chief Executive. So, as we have seen throughout our history, though only the House may propose to spend tax dollars, it is the undemocratic Senate and President who hold the veto power and ultimately decide which expenditures will be made. Further, the Executive branch controls the Treasury, and thus, the tangible money supply. And finally, should all else fail, the Supreme Court can declare an act of Congress unconstitutional, thus for all intents and purposes, wielding a third veto over the House of Representatives’ “power”.

In similar fashion, although only the democratically elected House of Representatives was given power to impeach a President, the ultimate power to remove the Executive was allocated to the undemocratic Senate, which acts as judge and jury and decides the final sentence. One penultimate backstop for the elite to control the proceedings, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is tasked with ruling over the Senate’s trial. As we have seen in recent years, factual evidence of guilt or innocence matters little in convicting an impeached President, his sentence is only dependent on which party controls the undemocratic Senate chamber at the time of his impeachment.

To recap; under the original Constitution, actions passed by the only part of the U.S. government that was democratically elected, could be overruled by any one of the three other “undemocratic” branches, and, must have unanimous approval of all three of those others before legislation written by the House can become law. Representative Democracy? “Say it ain’t so, Spanky!”

THE UNDEMOCRATIC SENATE: wealth’s cherubims

As a structural guarantee that America not become a true democracy, controlled by a simple majority of citizens, (or, a majority of simple citizens) the saintly “founders” decided that the “upper house” of the legislature, the only one of the three stool “legs” sub-divided into two distinct bodies, would pay homage to Rome’s Senate. This chamber would be composed of two Senators from each state, regardless of the population residing in those states. Clearly, an undemocratic arrangement from the get-go. This body was vested with powers far beyond those the House of Representative was granted, and the Senate closely resembled the higher chamber in the English Parliament at the time, called, the House of Lords or Peers.

Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability.
— James Madison: Statement (1787-06-26) as quoted in Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787 by Robert Yates.
Justification for breaking the Congress into two parts and including this remnant of aristocracy was, and is still offered, that the wise men of substance in this chamber would rise above political passions and act to safeguard the general welfare. History has shown that the members of the Senate exhibit no extraordinary amount of wisdom and seldom live up to that ideal, more often safeguarding the welfare of those with the most wealth, including themselves. Protecting those who need safeguarding the least.

“Besides, the design of a senate is not merely to check the legislative assembly, but to collect wisdom and experience. The house of representatives may be composed of new and unexperienced members— But, fill the senate with men venerable for age and respectability, experienced in the ways of men, and in the art of governing, and who are not liable to the bias of passions that govern the young.” — Noah Webster, 1787

That each state is allowed two representatives in the Senate, no matter the actual number of “free persons” living within that jurisdiction is “undemocratic” by definition. In reality, as is readily apparent in modern politics, what this means is that the will of the majority can be subverted by a single branch of Congress under minority control. Consider that North Dakota, with a markedly conservative population of 760,900 souls, gets equal representation in the Senate as New York, a consistently progressive state of 19,491,339.

In the 2016 election, Republican Senatorial candidates received roughly 43% of the national Senatorial votes cast and yet controlled 51% of the seats in the Senate. A Republic? Sort of. A Democracy? Not at all. As of 2020, GOP Senators representing 43% of the US population held 50 seats in the Senate. Democratic Senators representing the majority of the American people, receiving nationally 56% of votes, only held 50 Senate seats. That seems contrary to the way “democracy” is supposed to work. Some call such an arrangement, “minority rule”, which is inherent in the definition of “Plutocracy”. When it is understood that members of that minority party are bankrolled by ultra-wealthy individuals and corporations, the definition of Plutocracy is virtually complete.

To further secure the rights of property owners, this chamber of Congress was granted certain critical powers, far over and above those allocated to the House of Representatives. The House, as mentioned previously, is said to hold the “power of the purse”, as all budgetary legislation must originate in that chamber. But, since the Senate must approve any legislation before it can become law, they hold a virtual veto power over the House’s ability to fund government. Today, the whim of 51 Senators can override the will of a majority in the House of Representatives. The Senate can veto or refuse to consider any legislation passed by the House of Representatives, the one branch of the government actually elected in representative proportion to the populace.

Furthermore, only the Senate can confirm Federal judicial appointees, including Supreme Court justices. It is the only branch of government with the power to approve or reject Presidential nominees to serve as Executive branch cabinet secretaries, ambassadors and agency administrators. The Senate has authority to advise the Executive on treaties with foreign nations. And, perhaps its most consequential power, the Senate acts as judge, jury and final arbiter in deciding whether or not to convict a President, once impeached by the House of Representatives. History, ancient and recent, gives a stark example of the misuse of this power. The Senate has never convicted an impeached President.

So, this one body, which can be, and often is, controlled by members representing a minority of the voting public; has excessive influence on the policy and administration of a supposedly democratic-republic. Again, as current events proclaim, a Senate controlled by a minority faction of voters, can corrupt the judicial system for generations, by granting lifetime appointments to judges with radical political philosophies. Those controlling the chamber can override a Senator from a majority party who disapproves of judicial candidates nominated to serve in courts of that Senator’s home state. And perhaps most problematical, these sagacious Senatorial wise men, can refuse to consider a nomination to the Supreme Court by a “democratically” elected President of the opposing party, simply by failing to act, as was proved during Barack Obama’s administration.

Over time, the Senate instituted its own “parliamentary” rules that govern how it operates on a day to day basis. One of these self-imposed procedures has come to be known as the “filibuster”. By invoking this “rule”, not found in the Constitution, a minority group can compel the majority to gather “Yea” votes from 60% of the Senators to pass specific legislation. Another mechanism where a faction, representing a minority of Americans, holds the power to defeat the will of the majority in the U.S. Senate. Just as planned in 1787, this government body functions exactly as the “founding fathers” intended, providing a means for a small cadre of wealthy citizens to thwart the desires of the majority.

Although all 50 states have developed polling systems to count the individual votes cast for Presidents, Governors, Senators, Representatives, State’s Attorney Generals, County Sheriffs, etc., to this day, the highest office in the land, the President, is still not elected by a direct canvass of the people. In 2000 and again in 2016 the Presidential candidate receiving the majority of popular votes lost the election. Democratic rule by the majority is a myth in America.

In Federalist #62, the author agues for the advantages of having two chambers in the Legislative branch, with the “wise” undemocratic Senators moderating the passions of the “young” democratic House members. But the undemocratic, Executive and Judiciary branches, apparently, need no such moderating element. The two branches that need moderating the most were given the greatest, unchecked freedom of action. Supreme Court justices get lifetime appointments and some stay on the bench for 30 or 40 years. Down to the present day, the President, and the Supreme Court are, to large degree, shielded from meaningful penalties for abusing their powers. Congress has never brought impeachment charges against a Supreme Court justice since the Constitution was ratified and has only indicted three Presidents on impeachable charges, during that time span. None were convicted.

But, the undemocratic makeup of the Senate does double damage, as it also contributes to America’s undemocratic procedure for selecting our Chief Executive Officer.

THE TOTALLY UNDEMOCRATIC ELECTORAL COLLEGE: a

university with no curriculum, students or faculty

The Federalist Papers are often mentioned by historians as reflecting the contemporary understanding of America’s brand spanking new Constitution in 1787. In actuality, the 85 Federalist Papers were all written, anonymously at the time, by only three men, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. Men biased by their participation in the Convention which drafted the U.S. Constitution. Men who all had “skin in the game”. These men had a vested interest in “selling” the new government charter they had helped to write. The “Federalist Papers” were composed in an attempt to explain to the public (esp. New York residents) how the un-ratified Constitution was intended to work; but most importantly, the authors (all but 3 of the 80 essays were penned by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton) hoped to persuade the uncommitted states to ratify the new form of government.
Apparently, it fell to Alexander Hamilton to elucidate the novel mechanism called the “Electoral College”. Whatever Hamilton’s intentions were in Federalist #68, (included in Appendix) they were simply his interpretation of the concept or what today we would call his “spin” on the clause in the unratified Constitution. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, (later modified by Amendment 12), is the language that specifies how Presidents shall be elected.
The Constitution DOES NOT specify that a vote by the American people is required to elect the President or Vice President. In fact, just the opposite; the Constitution specifies that only the “Electoral College” shall choose the Executive. It makes no mention of, or allowance for a national popular vote for President or VP. So, unfortunately, Al Gore’s popular vote total of 500,000 more votes than George W. Bush in 2000, or Hillary Clinton’s receipt of 2.9 million more votes than Donald Trump in 2016, has no value in the Electoral College process. Both popular vote winners “lost” the Presidential election.
The Constitution does not stipulate that Electors are required to cast their votes in conformance with their state’s popular vote; since, as mentioned previously, it does not anywhere even suggest that a popular vote for President be taken.
The Constitution requires that the State Legislatures shall appoint Electors equaling their total of Representatives and Senators. It leaves to the States how they shall be chosen and whether they shall be instructed how to vote. At the inception of the new United States government, there were no organized political parties. It was not a foregone conclusion that our system would devolve into the current norm of only two major parties, or into permanent parties, at all.
In modern times, most States use a winner take all approach, whereby they appoint all of their Electors from the party whose national candidate won a majority of that State’s popular vote. A few states, appoint Electors commensurate with each Presidential candidate’s percentage of the State popular vote. This seems a more equitable method and could be implemented by all the individual States at any time; without resorting to a Constitutional Amendment or any substantive change in the election process. If all the States followed this “proportional” method; perhaps the election results would have been different. But they don’t. And they weren’t.
It has been written that the Electoral College was contrived to give the smaller States & especially, the slave holding States more influence in the election of Presidents. Historians often call this arrangement the “Great Compromise”. Slave states were allowed to count slaves as 3/5ths of a voter in determining their number of Representatives in Congress. (But, of course, the slaves themselves were not allowed to vote.) I’m not sure how that relates to the claim of a representative-democracy. The Electoral College system gave Southern, slave-holding states a much greater weight in Presidential elections than they would have had by using a national popular vote. The Electoral College mechanism (and the Senate) gave those states far more influence in national politics than their population of eligible voters actually deserved. 
History shows that during America’s early decades the Federal government was disproportionately controlled by the Southern, slave-holding states. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe; 10 of the first 15 Presidents were from slave-holding states. In the House of Representatives, 19 of the 35 Speakers & 33 of 53 President Pro Tempores were from Southern states, prior to the Civil War.
The advantage to smaller states was significant, then and now, as can be shown by a current example. California has a population of 38,800,000. Wyoming has 584,153. California has 55 Electoral votes, while Wyoming has 3. It takes 705,454 Californians to equal 1 Electoral College vote. But, it only requires 194,717 voters in Wyoming to equal 1 Electoral vote. It takes more voters in California to get 1 Electoral vote than the total population of Wyoming. So, due to the undemocratic makeup of the Senate, less populated states gain an undeserved and undemocratic advantage in Presidential elections, as well.
It has been written that the Electoral College was devised as a compromise, to bring smaller and slave-holding states into the new union. But, it also served to give the powerful, property owning class a relief valve and check against a democratically elected President that they deemed “unfit to fulfill the duties”. The Electoral College was to be controlled by the ruling class, of which southern slave owners considered themselves a major part. But, that group also included Northern shipping concerns, manufacturers, merchants and bankers. Whatever its original justification, recent elections have shown that the mechanism was insufficient to stop someone “unfit to fulfill the duties” of President from taking office.

In Federalist #68, Hamilton tells us: “It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided.” The “sense of the people” though, did not mean that “the people” would actually be allowed to register that “sense” by voting. No, for the next paragraph reveals what the founders actually intended.
Hamilton continues, “It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station… A small number of persons… (who) will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.” Now, from which group of citizens, do you suppose, that “small number of persons” possessing the requisite “discernment” might be chosen?
In modern times, Hamilton’s theoretical justification has no relevance whatsoever. The Electoral process has now been completely subjugated to each state’s laws and the will of state legislatures, who appoint “electors” based on party affiliation, specify how those political proxies shall vote and grant them no purview for “analyzing the qualities adapted to the station”.
Hamilton goes on to predict, “The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” Wow, Mr. Hamilton was an abject failure as a prognosticator. Today, most states consistently vote for one party or the other, so, in modern elections, the vast majority of campaign visits and advertising dollars go to a handful of “swing” states whose election results provide one candidate or the other with a majority of Electoral College ballots.
Again, the undemocratic allocation of two Senators per state, is inherent in the imbalance of the Electoral College too, since the number of a state’s Electors is a total of their Representatives plus two Senators. It must have been obvious, even in 1787, that this arrangement would not always reflect the majority will. One man, one vote. One state, two votes. Electoral College, the only votes that count. How can this arrangement be considered “democratic”?

THE UNDEMOCRATIC CHIEF EXECUTIVE: i nonsense of the people

Again, as mentioned, Hamilton’s reasoning, that, “The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” is so obviously erroneous as to require no comment. But, as support for my hypothesis that the Constitution’s framers built in structural restrictions on democracy, the office of President itself, as conveyed by the undemocratic Electoral College, must also be considered “undemocratic”. There is no legitimate reason that the President of the United States could not be elected directly by the people. There is no technological or logistical justification; we see the popular vote tabulated in real time on our television screens, during every Presidential election.
Thomas Jefferson commented on the defense of liberty in a democracy:
“It is an axiom in my mind that our liberty can never be safe but in the hands of the people themselves, and that too of the people with a certain degree of instruction. This it is the business of the state to effect, and on a general plan.” — Thomas Jefferson [Jefferson to: Geo Washington, January 4, 1786.)]
“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” — Thomas Jefferson
And yet, to this day, the individual votes of our total population are not relevant in the selection of the President. As the results of elections in 2000 and 2016 suggest, perhaps the common voters had more collective wisdom than the proxy group comprising the Electoral College.
This arrangement has, in modern politics, also led to other, systemically undemocratic processes. In recent years, many states have consistently fallen into predictable ideological camps, always returning a majority vote for the Democratic or Republican Presidential candidate. What is left are called the “swing” states, or states that do not consistently vote one way or the other. As a result, the lion’s share of the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on Presidential elections are spent primarily in those swing states.
The wishes of the voters of a minority of states are given undo significance by candidates for President. Rather than visiting as many states as possible and addressing as many voters as possible, modern Presidential candidates focus their time and resources on a small, select group of “swing” voters who often decide the outcome.

THE UNDEMOCRATIC JUDICIARY: last resort of capital

The Federal Judiciary is the ultimate and most glaring example of how our undemocratic system operates to protect wealthy property owners. As designed, members of this unelected branch of government were to be appointed at the President’s discretion; a political office holder who was himself chosen not by the people, but by a College of Electors appointed by the State Legislatures. These “justices” are then approved or rejected with “advise & consent” of the totally “undemocratic” Senate; America’s “free Persons” being systematically left out of the decision as to what type of person will have the power to decide what is just, limit their freedoms or even sentence them to prison.

As we can witness currently, when one party controls the White House and Senate, they can pack the courts with political ideologues, who may or may not represent the will of the majority, much less be judges possessing wisdom, or the capability to make equitable rulings. More so, these justices, chosen and approved because of their political beliefs, are given a lifetime appointment and have no real check or “negative”, on the cases they decide to hear, the quality of opinions they hand down and if they have a conflict of interest that requires they recuse themselves from ruling on certain cases. Even when poll after poll shows the public supports: a woman’s right to choose; gun control regulations; limits to money corporations spend on elections; restrictions on corporate polluters; etc., these judges can declare otherwise. The Supreme Court can claim that corporations have the same rights as individual Americans, or, assert, as they did in Citizens United v FEC, that money corporations spend on elections has the same unrestricted, 1st Amendment nature as a citizen’s right to free speech.

As if the moneyed interests didn’t already have a large enough voice in governmental policy and rulemaking, the court’s 2013 Citizens United decision opened the coffers of giant corporations and they, now, freely spend what ever amount of money it takes to buy members of Congress who will do their bidding. The Surreal Court decided they had the authority to overturn the moderate restrictions Congress had enacted to limit excessive political campaign spending. Polls have consistently shown that the American people think spending in political campaigns has become excessive and should be limited. Their representatives in Congress accordingly passed laws to do that. The High Court declared Congress had no right to limit political spending, because that would be limiting the free speech of corporations, (even though corporations have no mouth with which to speak, aren’t registered to vote and may be controlled by foreign nationals), and threw out Congress’s regulations, the will of the common people be damned. Judge enacted legislation made possible because America is not a Democracy.

In their ruling in the case of Citizens United v. FEC, the Supremely Undemocratic Court also disregarded these clauses found in the U.S. Constitution:

ARTICLE 1.
Section. 4. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To … provide for the … general Welfare of the United States…
…To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

In 2012 the Supremely Sanctimonious Court again took it upon themselves to invalidate the will of the people as affirmed by their elected representatives in five separate Congressional sessions. Overturning 40+ years of Congressional legislation in the case, Shelby County v. Holder, five judges dismantled key provisions of the Voting Rights Act, offering as their reasoning that “things had changed” in the south. In essence they ruled, that protecting the right of citizens in a democracy to vote, was undemocratic. Too many citizens showing up at the polls on election day was destroying democracy.

The list of SCOTUS rulings favoring the moneyed interests, Christian religion, corporations, gun owners, etc., over the common good is too numerous to list here, but it reveals that the founders embedded the ultimate safeguard to wealthy property owners into the very fabric of the Constitution and core of our system of government. I’ll address this in more detail later.

SUFFRAGE

So, again, even “free Persons” would not actually get to vote directly for Senators or the U.S. President or Federal judges, the highest positions in the proposed new “faux-democracy”. They could only vote for Representatives to the lowest House of government. It took the 14th Amendment in 1868 to override the state’s sovereignty in deciding who should be allowed to vote, by giving all male citizens, aged 21 and over, the right to vote. Since even a Constitutional Amendment could not compel southern states to allow black males to vote, the 15th Amendment was passed two years later, in 1870, declaring no 21 year old man could be prohibited from voting due to his race. Not until the 17th Amendment, in 1913, were Senators elected directly by the people.

But for all that, it wasn’t until 1920, nearly 150 years after the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, that the largest segment of the “free” adult population; American women, were allowed to vote when the 19th Amendment was ratified. And, it was 1964 before the 24th Amendment was ratified, prohibiting “poll taxes” being used to keep the poor and minorities, especially black citizens, from voting. In other words, states would no longer be able to suppress poor voters by requiring them to pay a tax before voting.

Then, in 1965 Congress acknowledged that, the 14th, 15th, 17th & 24th Amendments not withstanding, certain regions of the country were always going to make it as difficult as possible for people of color to vote, and, enacted the Voting Rights Act (VRA) to correct the problem. Part of the VRA required states with a history of voter suppression to get approval from the Justice Department before making changes to that state’s election procedures. Because it proved effective in protecting minority voters, the Voting Rights Act was reauthorized four additional times; in 1970, 1975, 1986 and 2006, due to the lingering racial animosity in certain regions.

The VRA was an attempt to make America more closely resemble a “democracy” by insuring all citizens could participate in the political process by casting a ballot. And more minority and poor citizens registered and voted under its protections. It worked so well, in fact, that the Supreme Court, in 2012, in Shelby County v. Holder, said as much in their ruling which dismantled the VRA. Relying on its unsubstantiated opinion, SCOTUS arbitrarily overturned a Constitutional act that had been approved by five separate Congressional sessions and signed by five separate Presidents, making it again, more difficult for black Americans to vote in certain districts, mostly in former slaveholding states. The learned justices admitted that the VRA had worked, and worked so well, it brought many formerly excluded voters into the electoral process. But, since it had been so successful “things had changed in the south” since 1965 and it was no longer needed.

In the years since their ruling, nearly 2,000 polling places were eliminated in those previously regulated states. Most of those abandoned voting sites were in minority neighborhoods. And, additional voter suppression measures were enacted by the states, systematically, making it more difficult for minority citizens to cast a ballot. Democracy can be a dangerous thing when left unchecked.

CONGRESSIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS: no resemblance

Even the one chamber of government that is composed of democratically elected citizens is not actually very “democratic” and has become “unrepresentative” as far as containing members from the various minority segments of society. Our current system for vetting and electing Federal office holders has become a game controlled by the wealthiest in our society. By common sense metrics, Congress is no longer representative of the population they supposedly serve. The vast majority in the House and Senate are older, Caucasian males. The median net worth of Congressional members is $1,000,000. 88.2% of Congressional members identify as Christians, while only 65% of the general population say they are Christians.

These statistics detail the unrepresentative nature of our representative-democracy.

White Males In General Population: 32%
White Males In U.S. House: 75%
White Males In U.S. Senate: 79%Median Age of U.S. General Population: 37.2 yrs.
Average Age of U.S. Representatives: 56.7 yrs.
Average Age of U.S. Senators: 62.2 yrs.Median U.S. Income [2013]: $ 52,250.
Median Net Worth U.S. Representatives [2014]: $896,000.
Median Net Worth of U.S. Senators [2014]: $2,794,024.
Average Net Worth SCOTUS [2012]: $3,758,902.

High School Diploma Only In General Population: 15%
High School Diploma Only In Congress: 05%
Women in General Population: 50.8%
Women in Congress: (93 of 635) 17.0%
House: 76
Senate: 17
4 States have never sent a woman to Washington.
African Americans in General Population: 12.6%
African Americans in Congress: 07.9%
25 States have never sent an African-American to Washington.
Hispanics in General Population: 16.3%
Hispanics in Congress: 06.0%
38 States have never elected a Hispanic Representative.
Asian/Pacific Islanders in General Population: 05.0%
Asian/Pacific Islanders in Congress: 02.0%
43 States have never elected a Asian/Pacific Islanders to Congress.
Native Americans in General Population: 00.9%
Native Americans in Congress: 00.004%
44 States have never elected a Native American.
Protestants in General Population: 51.3%
Protestants in Congress: 57.0%
Catholics in General Population: 23.9%
Catholics in Congress: 29.0%
Catholics on Supreme Court: 55.5%

DEMOCRACY DON’T COME CHEAP: if you can’t beat ’em, buy ’em

The average worker, the small self-employed tradesman, the single mother being paid minimum wage, will never have the economic wherewithal to make their viewpoints heard in Congress, when it comes time to enact new legislation. The standard prattle about “get out there and vote politicians into office who will pursue the welfare of common citizens” or “if you don’t like it, run for office and change it” is just so much mumbo-jumbo in the real world, where money controls the debate, which issues are debated, the candidates, the elections and the outcomes.

Every Congressman must raise funds to maintain their political office. In modern politics, the amounts required to run for national office have become astronomical. History shows that even politicians who are most sympathetic to the laboring classes can’t help falling under the influence of those who hold the purse strings of politics. Between the wide-open spending exacerbated by the Citizens United ruling and the enormous budgets being spent by business interests to lobby policy-makers, it would be a rare office holder indeed, who could get any legislation passed that benefited “labor” and to which “capital” was opposed.

In 2012, winning candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives raised an average of $1.613 Million in campaign funds. The losing candidates averaged only $774,000. In the 2012 Senate races, winning candidates averaged nearly $10.5 Million, while losers averaged a mere $7.75 Million in campaign contributions. In the 2012 Presidential election, a total of nearly $1.5 Billion was spent by the two candidates. How does democracy survive when those levels of spending are required to compete? Potential, well-qualified candidates can’t even consider throwing their hat into the ring, knowing they can never raise those sums of cash. Or, those who refuse to prostrate themselves to a wealthy donor-class to solicit funding. Is that how democracy works?

But consider. If a solid majority of voters believed that America should raise taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations (which polls show they do), and a candidate ran for office championing that issue, how many wealthy donors would support that candidate? What if a candidate ran on a platform of raising corporate taxes, adding more regulations and increasing enforcement of existing environmental regulations on businesses and corporations? How much support from “dark money” sources, PACs, and wealthy business owners could that candidate expect to receive? Conversely, how much money do you think might be donated to his opponent?

We have, today, nearly completed the total take-over of government policy by business, industry and plutocrats. (Agency Capture.) Candidates find it extremely difficult to run for office without financial support of the wealthy, and can not get their support by espousing any remedies that might affect them negatively. In other words, if a candidate believes part of the solution to many current problems is to implement more stringent control of corporations, manufacturers and financial institutions, that candidate will be unable to raise the funds necessary to mount a viable national political campaign. Not to mention, the negative effect would most probably apply, in that those corporations, manufacturers and institutions would likely make donations to groups or candidates that opposed such a candidate or platform.

That example can be taken to nearly every area of society currently in need of reform. Could cost controls make health care more affordable for everyone? Should there be limits on the amount hospitals can charge for each of their services? Would costs to patients be lower if exams and routine medical procedures performed by doctors had standardized prices? Would hospitals, physicians, insurers, drug companies, etc., withhold their donations to a candidate championing such ideas? Would those same groups spend money to actively oppose such changes? Recent history with the “Affordable Care Act” and the Corona virus shows that they would.

Would it benefit the average voter to place a limit on the amount of interest banks can charge for credit cards or home, auto and student loans? Or limit the amount banks and credit cards can charge for late payment or overdraft fees? After the economic collapse of 2008, the Consumer Financial Protection Board was written into law to protect consumers from predatory lenders, excessive bank and credit card fees and financial scams. One of America’s political parties has made it a goal to defund or eliminate the CFPB altogether. One of the groups that regularly tops the lists of campaign contributors is the financial services industry. Would they be more motivated to support a candidate advocating such reforms, or his opponent who opposed them? That industry group donated millions to the Republican candidates in our last election. The will of the majority is seldom a consideration.

The ultimate stone wall is this: how can we expect politicians to reign in the excesses of wealthy individuals and billion dollar corporations when they are the ones who fund political campaigns? Especially since Citizens United has already opened the door to unlimited money in political elections, how do we get the horse back in the barn? Call it what you want, but America’s political system may resemble a democracy, but only if you don’t look too close.

DEMOCRACY SUBVERTED: expensive speech

For all the millions of dollars spent in election years to support political candidates, vastly greater sums are expended after the election to influence whichever candidates prevailed. Lobbying the American Congress, though not specifically addressed by the Constitution, has become an enormously lucrative business, in its own right. Between 1998 and 2013, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, alone, spent $1,000,000,000.00 (that’s Billion) to lobby Congress for the business community.

“K” Street firms specializing in influencing Federal (and state) policy have proliferated to the extent that in 2012, 12,373 registered lobbyists spent $3.28 Billion trying to shape public policy and government spending to their client’s benefit. Roughly $6.3 Billion was spent on the elections of 2012, a Presidential election year, but that $3.28 Billion is expended every year to lobby policymakers. And the number is growing.

The guarantees expressed in the 1st Amendment are cited by judges as justification for allowing such inordinate quantities of capital to be employed towards manipulating public policy. Though free speech and the right to petition the government were once considered sacrosanct American freedoms, one might wonder if the modern manifestation of the lobbying industry truly adheres to the spirit of individual freedom as embodied in the 1st Amendment.

Any series of big numbers can become mind-numbing and lose their significance; but to illustrate this point, I need to employ some. The last data I have quick access to is from 2012, and it has grown since. In that year, as I mentioned, roughly $3.28 Billion was spent on total lobbying in Washington D. C.

LOBBYING SEGMENT	AMOUNT SPENT	LOBBYISTS REPORTED
Total for Misc Business	$551,432,979	3,174
Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate	$481,534,500	2,347
Total for Health	$478,855,797	2,936
Total for Communications/Electronics	$386,777,925	2,041
Total for Energy & Natural Resources	$375,061,671	2,155
Total for Other	$217,330,666	2,684
Total for Ideological/Single Issue	$122,728,142	1,987
Total for Defense	$129,289,863	883
Total for Transportation	$239,491,998	1,670
Total for Construction	$45,412,978	745
Total for Labor	$45,398,234	413
Total for Lawyers & Lobbyists	$23,808,306	436

From these amounts, one can get a general idea of the levels at which interested parties are spending to control public policy. A further analysis reveals that roughly, $2.7 Billion was spent by business and industry groups for lobbying purposes. “Other” and single issues advocates spent about $364 Million, and Labor groups about $45.4 Million on lobbying in 2012. So, manufacturers, energy companies, health care providers and insurers, pharmaceutical & chemical makers, real estate developers, media & phone companies, defense contractors, transportation and construction concerns were able to expend $2.7 Billion to lobby Congress, while labor representatives had a budget of $45.4 Million. Apparently, the poorest citizens can not afford to have anyone lobbying on their behalf.

Not to belabor the point, but $2.7 Billion vs. $45.4 Million. Which viewpoint might one imagine policy makers heard more about in their decision making processes? Capital or labor? The desires of the wealthy and powerful or the concerns of the working classes and poorest citizens? This is a further example of how our, supposed, democratic system works undemocratically in reality. Most major industries, professions and related businesses groups have either hired existing lobbyists or deployed their own internal lobbying firms.

The groups with the highest lobbying expenditures are:
LOBBYING | Top Spenders
Years — 1998 to 2012

US Chamber of Commerce: $966,955,680
General Electric: $284,040,000
American Medical Assn: $281,282,500
American Hospital Assn: $235,149,136
Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America: $232,583,920
AARP: $222,822,064
National Assn of Realtors: $219,817,423
Blue Cross/Blue Shield: $202,740,052
Northrop Grumman: $189,435,253
Exxon Mobil: $182,392,742
Edison Electric Institute: $172,936,789
Verizon Communications: $172,427,933
Boeing Co: $171,972,310
Business Roundtable: $171,400,000
Lockheed Martin: $166,156,488
AT&T Inc: $152,419,336
Southern Co: $146,280,694
National Cable & Telecommunications Assn: $142,380,000
General Motors: $134,534,170
National Assn of Broadcasters: $132,890,000
TOP 20 SPENDERS TOTAL (’98–’12) :: $4,580,616,490.00

The great majority of working Americans, have no one lobbying Congress on their behalf. The minimum wage has stayed at the same amount for some 15 years. There has not even been in increase to account for inflation and the ever rising cost of living. Rents have gone up, CEO salaries have gone up by 100’s of percent, the price of gas and automobiles and a loaf of bread have all increased over the last 15 years. But the minimum wage has decreased in its real, inflation adjusted value. One would have to speculate, but I’d be willing to bet that if more members of Congress came from working class families, the minimum wage would be higher today than it is. But, which blue-collar, wage earning worker can afford to take months off from their job to campaign for Federal office? Or fund their campaign from their own savings? It has become an exclusive, rigged game that only those with wealth or connections can afford to play. Is that the same as democracy? Is that a representative form of government? Does such a system guarantee that the will of the majority will be the law of the land? It hasn’t so far.

Another aspect of the lobbying system in Washington is the high rate of “revolving door” members. Many lobbying firms are started by, or employ former elected officials and Congressional staff members. We often hear of elected officials and their staff, upon “retirement”, going to work for a firm or company that they previously regulated or contracted with in their official positions. As a lobbyist, who better than a former member of the House or Senate, to serve as liaison to current Congressmen and women? Staff members also move rather freely between employment in government or industry or lobbying firms.

An obvious solution to the problem of too much money in lobbying, by business or otherwise, would be to enact limits on lobbying. Again, this on its face sounds like a potential 1st Amendment infraction. But is it really? The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate itself and its members.

Article I, Section 8.
Congress shall have the power…
…To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

AMERICA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY: and it wasn’t meant to be

So, although we are perennially told America is a democracy or democratic-republic or a representative-democracy, reality does not support that belief. The United States was not designed to be a true democracy, has never been and is not now such a creature. It has always been controlled by the wealthiest in society, and up to modern times, by the wealthiest Caucasian members of our culture. The will of the majority has seldom guided the direction of public policy.
In the current political polarization we hear both sides wailing about “defending democracy” or “our democracy is in peril” or “the other side is trying to destroy our democratic system” or “we have to take back our country”, but there is no democracy to defend or destroy or lose. Only our collective delusion that we ever had such a system in the first place, is being revealed in broad daylight. The Emperor has indeed been parading around in his birthday suit.
The myth of America’s “democracy” has traditionally been tied to our second great national myth of the sanctity of “capitalism”. The popular neurosis resulting from trying to reconcile those two disparate concepts has engendered a schizophrenic perception of our social order for over 200 years. The undeniable acceleration in the last 50 years of wealth inequality serves to highlight the class structure that has always been present in American society. It was never that far removed from the older forms of aristocracy and feudalism. We did eliminate rule by hereditary monarchs, but the “ruling class” today is little different than those of 18th century Europe. Men’s desire for individual wealth has never been more pronounced and honored, than it is in United States. Democracy only gets in the way of that individual goal.
In the final analysis, democracy and capitalism are philosophically incompatible. See how in: “Democracy Ain’t Capitalism”.

One doesn’t have to abridge the “free speech” of lobbyists to limit their receptivity or access to Congressional members. Surely, if there was a will, a legal way could be found to mitigate lobbyist’s undemocratic access to power. But, which politician is going to turn off the money pump?