Democracy or Republic: False Choice?

    Every once in a while, someone justifies that we shouldn't expect the political system to reflect the will of the people because we live in a republic, not a democracy.  Usually the line of reason goes something like this:
1.  We elect our leaders, not govern ourselves directly
2.  Rights could not exist in a democracy, because the will of the people would always defeat the individual
3.  We have a federal system, so we can't be a democracy
4.  I belong to the party that calls itself Republican, so republics must be good but I am fed up with the party that calls itself Democratic so democracy must be evil
5.  The founding fathers said you can't trust democracy, and they're right
    I think the easiest way to deal with these arguments is to first state what my definitions of "democracy' and "republic" are.  Democracy comes from the Greek word demokratia "people power."  Republic comes from the Latin phrase "res publica" or "from the people" sometimes translated "public affair."  These terms originated independently to describe systems of government where power comes from below.  The Roman Republic was often more conservative than the Athenian democracy, but the terms were not intended to be opposed.
    At the time of the U.S. founding, many of the founding fathers argued in favor of a republic and against what they called "pure democracy." By this they meant they supported what we now call representative democracy rather than what we now call direct democracy. Many of the founders also advocated substantial restrictions on voting rights, so the early republic was not democratic by modern standards because of that.
    However, other historical writers as well as the modern consensus do not fall into this trap. Montesquieu, for instance, divides republics between "aristocratic republics" and "democratic republics" based on the level of popular participation.  And in modern parlance representative democracies are divided between constitutional monarchies which posses some sort of ceremonial hereditary ruler, and republics, which do not. Therefore, a democratic republic is no contradiction in terms. Let;s build one in the USA.

State of the District of Columbia?

  The budget fight of several years back was just one more example of how Congress currently treats the District of Columbia.  When the government neared shutdown, it became clear that a shutdown would suspend local municipal functions.  Although DC residents pay Federal taxes, and local DC taxes, the Federal Government receives these payments on behalf of the municipality, and eventually pays them to the District.  However, if the Federal Government shuts down these payments that are already designated to go to DC are stopped.  Even when payments continue, it gives the impression that DC relies upon Federal welfare even when it pays its own local taxes.

  Not only does DC depend on the US for local funding, it suffers an incredible amount of intervention into its internal affairs.  Some of this might be necessary for the national interest, however, often it is simply idealogical concerns, for the most recent example, when Congress prevented District funds for paying for abortions.  However, Congress has experimented with various education programs and other initiatives without local consent.  As long as DC remains under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress no mere act can protect it from the possibility of having its rights trampled upon.

  The only way to ensure that DC citizens get a chance to control their own affairs is to give them representation in Congress, remove the District from direct Federal control or both.

  One way to do this is through a constitutional amendment, which is notoriously difficult.  Another way is through a law to give it home rule and representation.  However, this law would likely be unconstitutional and could be revoked by Congress at any time.  The two options left are statehood and retrocession, in which the residential areas would be returned to Maryland as an independent city.

    The democratic way to deal with this would be to hold a plebiscite on the matter and let district residents choose which way they want to go, then for Congress to enact the result. Most likely statehood would win, and residents would finally have the equal representation they deserve.

Voting Systems and Instant Runoff

     In my post on Presidential elections, I mentioned that even if the U.S. moved to a direct election system, it would still have some problems due to the plurality voting system.  The reason is that of the"spoiler effect," the tendency for two candidates with similar views to split the votes between them, allowing another candidate to win by virtue of the existence of a third party.  Examples of this that are often given are the 1912 election where the Republican incumbent W. H. Taft was challenged by Progressive Republican (Bull Moose) Theodore Roosevelt and Democrat Woodrow Wilson.  The two Republicans split the Republican vote, allowing Wilson to win.  A more recent, and more infamous, example is the 2000 Bush v Gore election, where Nader drew more liberals than conservatives and was one of the factors in Bush's win.  Although Gore still received a plurality in the popular vote, the spoiler effect in general is likely be a problem in the future.
     One solution to this problem is the instant runoff, also called the alternative vote or ranked-choice vote.  This system allows a voter to indicate their first choice, second choice and so on. When the ballots are counted the candidates with the least votes are eliminated and the votes re-assigned to the candidate ranked next on the ballot, until one candidate has a majority.
     There are many methods for choosing candidates for a large body by proportional representation, including Single Transferable Vote, a variation of IRV.  However, there are not so many for choosing a single official (like the president or a governor).  The other option would be a second round election, either by the people or legislature.  This is an improvement over current first past the post systems, but relies on the existence of a dominant two-party system.  When such a system begins to break down, as it did in the last French election, it can end up elevating candidates who do not have the support of the majority.  Therefore, the instant runoff seems the best system to use for executive offices.