Written by Dr. Brian Frederking

Illustrations by Andy Cross

A common perception is that the United States is the best democracy, that it is a shining example to the rest of the world. Despite that, there is much angst about the future of our democracy.

There are two very different ways to do democracy. One way is based on majority rule, in which the government responds to the political goals of its citizens. The second way is based on limited government, where the government does not violate the rights of its citizens. The United States does not do majority rule; it does limited government. The U.S. Constitution prioritizes the protection of individual rights through the separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism; most other democracies have embraced the first way, the majority rule approach.

Perhaps an 18^th-century notion of freedom – we are free if the government leaves us alone – is inadequate to address issues like climate change, crime, education, immigration, and health care in the 21^st century. Instituting a truly majority rule system would likely increase public support for the government and help us fend off the authoritarian forces among us.

Most of us are aware of U.S. system peculiarities like the Electoral College and the filibuster. But there is a much longer list of things that we do that other democracies do not do. These uncommon features make it harder for the U.S. to pursue majority rule.

Maybe we’re doing it wrong.

The Rankings

Freedom House is a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit organization founded in 1941 best known for political advocacy surrounding issues of democracy, political freedom and human rights. The organization’s ranking of democracy levels around the world is regularly used by policymakers, journalists, activists and academics. In 2023, Freedom House gave the U.S. a score of 83 out of 100. While a B grade sounds pretty good, 58 countries scored higher than the U.S. If we set aside countries with a population under 5 million, 24 other countries remain: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. Perhaps we can learn from the higher-ranked democracies.

The U.S. does many things that these 24 democracies rarely or never do. Every item on the below list is part of the U.S. approach to democracy and is consistent with the premise that democracy is about limited government and protecting individual rights. Every item on the list thwarts majority rule. All the higher-rated democracies eschew these practices because they prefer majority rule.

Super-majority votes are required to pass routine legislation.

None of the 24 higher-rated democracies have anything resembling the Senate filibuster. In these democracies, the passage of routine legislation requires a simple majority vote. The Senate filibuster is the starkest example of the U.S. system thwarting majority rule – and the use of the filibuster is increasing. It was rarely used until the 1960s, and it has steadily increased since then. In recent years, Senators have used the filibuster 60 to 70 times per year.

Instead of enabling parties that win elections to pass the policies they ran on, the filibuster prevents them from doing so. After Democrats have won elections, Republican filibusters have prevented laws regarding campaign finance reform, worker rights protections, and immigration reform. After Republicans have won elections, Democratic filibusters have prevented laws regarding drilling in the Arctic, abortion restrictions, and a repeal of the estate tax. In a majority rule democracy, the winning side can actually pass the policies they ran on.

Executive branch races can be won without receiving the most votes.

None of the higher-rated democracies have anything like the Electoral College. They all require the winning candidate to get the most votes. The vast majority (19 of 24) are parliamentary systems in which the prime minister must receive a majority vote from a newly elected legislature. Of the five presidential systems, four have a second round of voting with the top two candidates. Taiwan has one round and thus a possible plurality vote winner (this has happened only once since 2000). No one has an electoral system where the candidate with the most votes could lose.

Of course, the U.S. had such elections in 2000 and 2016. If we think that democracy is about majority rule, then these elections had unacceptable outcomes, and they have tremendous anti-majoritarian consequences. Republicans have won the popular vote only once in the last eight elections, yet they have still won three times, and they have nominated six of the nine current Supreme Court justices. A majority of the current court were nominated by presidents who did not win the popular vote. Not only is this an example of the U.S. system thwarting majority rule, but it can also be seen as minority rule, a form of authoritarianism.

Republicans won the popular vote just once in the last 8 elections, yet they took presidential office 3 times, nominating 6 of the 9 current Supreme Court justices.

Politicians draw legislative district lines.

None of the 24 higher-rated democracies allow politicians to influence election outcomes by drawing legislative district lines. Gerrymandering can only occur in single-member-district (SMD) electoral systems. Proportional representation (PR) systems have no district lines to gerrymander; the entire country votes for parties, and parties win legislative seats according to the proportion of their national vote.

Most of the top democracies (15 of 24) have either proportional representation (PR) or multi-member district (MMD) electoral systems. MMD systems usually have three members per district, with the party winning the most votes getting two seats and the party coming in second getting one seat. Redrawing the lines for partisan gain is much less effective in MMD systems. Five countries combine PR, MMD, and/or SMD to allocate seats in their legislature. Germany, for example, adds seats to the Bundestag so that the SMD elections do not skew the results too far from the proportional vote.

Only four countries (Australia, Canada, France and the United Kingdom) use the SMD system, and they all use an independent or non-partisan organization to draw district lines. Gerrymandering is uniquely American and routinely skews election results. For example, Republicans won Congress in 2000, 2004, 2012 and 2016 with a minority of votes nationwide. The effect is often greater at the state level. For example, in Wisconsin, Republicans had a veto-proof 2/3 of the state legislative seats after the 2020 election, in which both Biden and a Democratic governor won the state.

The upper house is more powerful than the lower house.

None of the 24 higher-rated democracies have an upper house as powerful and unrepresentative as the U.S. Senate. Pure majority rule democracies have a unicameral legislature. Bicameral legislatures have an “upper house” that represents regions rather than people. An unrepresentative upper house that prevents legislation from passing can thus thwart majority rule. Nine of the 24 democracies have unicameral legislatures and avoid this anti-majoritarian possibility. Seven have bicameral systems with a weak upper house that cannot “check” lower houses during the legislative process. The remaining eight bicameral systems have roughly co-equal houses. There is a wide variety of democratic practice regarding unicameral and bicameral legislatures.

The U.S., however, is the only country where the upper house has more power. The Senate alone ratifies treaties, confirms judicial nominees and removes the executive from office. Majority rule democracies do not allow the less representative of the two houses to have more power. The U.S. Senate, of course, is also extremely unrepresentative. The nine biggest states have 51% of the population but only 18% of the Senate votes. The filibuster enables 41 votes, or the Senators from 21 states, to stop a bill, and the 21 smallest states have only 11% of the population. California has more people than the 21 least-populated states. If democracy should be majority rule, then the Senate is an abomination.

Judges have lifetime appointments.

Majority rule democracies do not let unelected judges have too much power. One way to insulate judges from public opinion, and thus majority rule, is to give them lifetime appointments. Only one of the 24 higher-rated democracies (Portugal) does this. Most have mandatory retirement ages, ranging from 65 (Austria and Slovakia) to 75 (Argentina, Canada and the United Kingdom). Some have term limits, ranging from six years (Switzerland) to twelve years (Germany).

Another way to give unelected judges more power and thwart majority rule is through judicial review – the ability to rule that legislation passed by elected representatives is unconstitutional. It is difficult to determine which countries have or do not have judicial review – there are a range of possibilities on a continuum. Many (UK, Netherlands, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland) explicitly reject judicial review. In some countries (such as Canada), other branches can ignore judicial pronouncements. In some other countries (such as Denmark), it is rarely used. In some (France), it is part of the legislative process, wherein the courts give guidance to the legislature regarding the constitution-ality of the bills it is considering.

The U.S. Supreme Court is easily the most powerful in the world because it routinely uses judicial review and prevents the elected branches from acting. Similar to the filibuster, the use of judicial review has dramatically increased in recent decades. Recent examples include ending the Biden student loan forgiveness program, undoing campaign finance laws, overturning Roe and removing parts of the Voting Rights Act.

Elections are on workdays.

Majority rule democracies make it easy for citizens to vote. Instead of the U.S. practice of citizens having to register to vote (and then do it again every time they move), the onus is on the government to ensure that all citizens have access to the ballot. For example, in 19 of the 24 higher-ranked democracies, elections are held on weekends. Only five (Canada, Denmark, UK, Netherlands and Norway) have the U.S. practice of voting on a workday. None rely on a federal system and have different voting eligibility requirements in different regions. None have restrictions like “voter purge” laws. If a majority rule democracy has something like a photo ID requirement, then the government ensures that each citizen has such an ID. The obvious result is that 22 of the 24 higher-rated democracies have higher voter turnout than the U.S. (only Canada and Switzerland have lower turnout).

A constitution that is exceedingly difficult to amend.

None of the 24 higher rated democracies have a constitutional amendment process more difficult than the U.S., which requires a ⅔ vote in both legislative houses and approval by ¾ of the state legislatures. Eleven simply require a legislative supermajority vote. Nine require both a legislative vote (five supermajority, four majority) and approval by a national referendum. Two require a majority vote in the legislature and approval by ⅔ of the states. One requires a supermajority legislative vote and approval by the president. One requires a supermajority legislative vote and approval by a national constitutional convention. Majority rule democracies do not fetishize their constitution. They alter it when they need to alter it. For example, Norway has amended its constitution over 400 times.

… and many more

The above is just a partial list of the uniquely undemocratic things the U.S. does. For example, none of the higher-rated democracies have a debt ceiling. None have a constitution that says citizens have the right to bear arms. None have primary elections and year-long political campaigns. None have such an unregulated campaign finance system. And so on.

What is important about the items on this list is that they thwart majority rule. Most people around the world associate democracy with majority rule. Consider all the countries that have democratized since World War II. They had the opportunity to choose any democratic system they wanted. And while some adopted a presidential system rather than a parliamentary system, none chose to mimic the U.S. system, which preferences limited government over majority rule.

This is not just a neutral question of process. How you do democracy influences the range of possible decisions your democracy can make. The U.S. Constitution is based on an 18^th century notion of freedom — that we are most free if the government leaves us alone: If the government does not tax us too highly or tell us how to worship or put us in jail without due process, then we are free. The framers started with this premise and created a system of separation of powers and checks and balances to ensure that majorities could not easily lobby the government and pass legislation that would violate this notion of freedom. The U.S. Constitution was a historic achievement, crucial at the time to avoiding the dangers of monarchy.

Avoiding tyranny, however, is not the only notion of freedom. Most people around the world today have a different notion of freedom. We are free – we can live the life we want to live – if we have access to certain goods. We are free if we have access to an education. We are free if we have access to health care. We are free if we can walk down the street without experiencing violence or other crimes. We are free if no one is invading our borders. We are free if we have a livable planet. We are free if we have basic rights in the workplace. We are free if we have a minimum standard of living. This notion of freedom requires government action and is consistent with majority rule. For U.S. citizens who have this notion of freedom, our democratic system is sorely lacking.

In some important ways, we are doing it wrong.

Our democracy does not only frustrate liberals who prefer more action on education, health care, racial justice, gun control and climate change. It also leads to bipartisan frustration regarding issues like infrastructure, crime and the opioid epidemic. It frustrates conservatives who prefer more action on border security, rural economic development and various culture war issues. Many conservatives, who are legitimately upset by our relatively unresponsive democracy, are now openly supporting an authoritarian alternative.

We need to defend democracy against authoritarianism – and we also need to have a democracy worth defending. We need a functioning democracy that responds to public opinion so that demagogues cannot capitalize on citizen frustration.

We need to consider the possibility that perhaps we are doing it wrong. And that perhaps the best way to fend off future authoritarian movements is by creating a truly majority rule democracy.

— s s l —

Dr. Brian Frederking is a professor of political science at McKendree University, located about 30 miles east of St. Louis. He received his graduate degrees from Syracuse University and his undergraduate degree from McKendree College. His research interests include the United Nations Security Council, international law and organization, and global governance. This is Brian’s third essay for Supplement St. Louis. Brian’s writings and viewpoints in this publication are not connected with McKendree University.

Andy Cross is a lifelong artist who works in many mediums, from wall murals to sculpture to stage craft. It’s hard to avoid experiencing the many different forms of his artwork throughout St. Louis, including at theater productions, gallery shows and community gardens. Andy has lived in the Skinker-DeBaliviere neighborhood of St. Louis for decades. His daughter, Emily Cross, also an artist, has had her papercut artwork featured in this magazine.