Democracy and the Problem of Permanent Minorities

When I took Constitutional Rights in law school, way back in 2010, our professor discussed the landmark decision of Reynolds v. Sims, which held that representative districts all had to be of roughly equal population.  He commented that the decision was immensely controversial at the time, setting off dire warnings that rural areas would be disenfranchised.  And yet, he commented, the decision had become universally accepted.

Well, that was then.  The rural/urban split between Democrats and Republicans was already well established, but so far no one was challenging the basics of majority rule.  Since then, Donald Trump won the 2016 electoral vote by a not-so-narrow margin while losing the popular vote by three million and the issue of whether the majority should rule is very much on the table.

And let us concede opponents of majority rule a few points.  Democracy really has not solved the problem of the permanent majority.  What underlies the system and makes it work is the assumption that everyone can (and will) win sometimes and everyone can (and will) lose sometimes.  The knowledge that everyone will sometimes be in the majority and sometimes in the minority gives the minority the incentive to yield to the majority (since they can hope to win not too far down the time) and the majority the incentive to respect the rights of the minority (since they never know when they might be in the minority as well).  Any group that becomes a permanent minority is effectively disenfranchised.  The majority loses its incentive the respect the group's rights, and the group tends to lose faith in democracy, since it is permanently locked out of power.  

One may debate what should be done to protect permanent minorities from the tyranny of the majority.  But to propose minority rule instead is even worse.  Minority rule simply trades disenfranchisement of a permanent minority to disenfranchisement of the majority.  A larger group of people will start to lose faith in the system, with even worse results.

I suppose that anti-majoritarians may say that they don't favor minority rule in the sense of saying that the minority always should win, merely that the system should put a strong enough thumb on the scale to ensure that the minority always can win.  Then the whole dynamic of losers yielding to the winners and winner respecting the rights of the losers will be restored.  The trouble here is the question of how far this dynamic should go.  How small does a group have to be before we can say that there is no need for the system to be rigged to ensure that group can sometimes outvote the majority?

And make no mistake.  In any functioning system of government, the majority will sometimes have to override the minority, to the minority's detriment.  Yes, there are some decisions that should be placed beyond the power of minority.  The majority should not be allowed to dictate its religious preferences, for instance, or pass discriminatory laws that deny the minority rights allowed to the majority.  But there are plenty of ordinary policy decisions that in one way or another advantage one interest over another, and that produce winners and losers.  To allow every interest group, no matter how small, a veto is a recipe for paralysis.*

Democratic vs. Republican counties, by geography

These days the split between Democrats, who dominate urban areas and Republicans, who dominate rural areas, grows ever greater.  This is bad news for both parties.  It is bad news for Republicans because it means that their share of the vote continuously dwindles as population increasingly concentrates in urban areas.  

But it is also bad news for Democrats because our system does put its thumb on the scale for rural areas.  Single-member districts innately favor populations that take of large amounts of land over populations that are densely packed together.  the Electoral College gives a bonus to small states over large ones.  And the Senate allows all states two Senators regardless of population shifts, guaranteeing small states a permanent veto.

Democratic v. Republican counties, by population

So what is the solution to permanent minorities, and to the polarization that is tearing this country apart?  I would say that the only answer to permanent minorities is in coalitions.  A permanent minority, instead of seeking a minority veto, let alone minority rule, should reach out to other groups to form a coalition.  Admittedly, by joining a coalition, the group sees its voice diluted.  But diluted is better than disenfranchised, and the will of the majority must also be respected.  

By way of example, the antebellum South was clearly outnumbered by the more populous North.  But it avoided being shut out of power by forming a coalition of agricultural interests with Western state that shared a common interest in free trade, easy money, and cheap land.  (They differed on federal investments in infrastructure, but such is the nature of coalitions).  The breakdown of this coalition was a major factor leading to the Civil War.

Or, in a quite different example, the Democratic Party today is very much a coalition of minorities, combining black, Hispanic, and Asian voters with upscale white liberals.  Democrats see any attempt to peal off part of this coalition as dirty pool, but historically that does not have to be the case.  For some time in the post-bellum US despised ethnic minorities were very much split, with black people supporting Republicans and immigrants supporting Democrats.  

One does read among Democratic literature warnings that the survival of the party depends on learning to reach out beyond the cities and find a way to appeal to rural areas.  And I have seen similar warnings in Republican literature, that the survival of the party depends in learning to win urban votes.  I concur with both opinions and would add, it is not just the survival of the parties at stake.  The survival of our democracy depends on it.

_______________________________________

*I realize that certain libertarians would say that government should not be allowed to advantage one group over another or to make policies that create winners and losers, and that the only way to achieve this is to make government as paralyzed and nearly powerless as possible.  But make no mistake, the absence of government action will produce winners and losers just as much as the presence of government action.

A Brief Note on Hurricane Dorian and Media Bias

Without going into a long discussion on media bias, there is one bias that is beyond doubt.  That the US media are US-centric should not be surprising, although they often take it to unjustifiable extremes.  And their coverage of the US focuses inordinately on the New York-DC corridor.

The ruins of Paradise, California

We saw this with Hurricane Sandy.  There was immense coverage of the hurricane and its effects on New York City.  Once the hurricane moved off into New England, our news media lost interest.  We saw this last year in the Florida Panhandle, when our new media scarcely even noticed Hurricane Michael because of their focus on the Congressional elections.  We saw it in 2016 when catastrophic flooding in Louisiana went almost uncovered because of the focus on the Presidential election.  We saw it last year when the city of Paradise California was burned down with some media attention, but hardly what the magnitude of the disaster called for.  So, yes, even New England and California get neglected by our national media in favor of the New York to DC corridor.

re o

Which leads to the subject of Hurricane Dorian.  I wouldn't really expect the Bahamas to get the sort of coverage the US gets, and I note to the news media's credit that they have given some attention to the devastation in the Bahamas.  But when it comes to the US, the focus has been rather obsessively on Florida, as if our media don't really care what happens to Georgia or the Carolinas.  And yes, I get that the hurricane's initial path seemed headed straight toward Florida, so the focus on Florida was justified.  But other states are just as much in harm's way now, and getting a lot less attention.

Am I too cynical in suspecting that is because a lot more of our big name bigwigs (including Trump with Mar-a-Lago) have homes or second homes in Florida than Georgia or the Carolinas?

Short Note on the Epstein Suicide

Really Donald Trump has done our side a great favor in tweeting the nutty conspiracy theory about the Clintons.  Before that, our own side was showing signs of sinking into a paranoia of its own.

But Trump just had to retweet someone's comment blaming Bill and Hillary to snap our side out and rally us against conspiracy theories.  So good work, Donald!

One More Comment on the Brexit

Polls show that Brexit supporters feel very strongly that their sovereignty is on the line.  For the sake of Brexit, they are willing to see North Ireland, Scotland, and even Wales withdraw from the United Kingdom, and willing to see the economy crash.

This is widely being portrayed as irrational and hysterical, but I am not so sure.  After all many countries have made great sacrifices for the sake of protecting their sovereignty.

So maybe the real question is not whether withdrawal from the EU would entail some hardships -- we all agree that it would.  The real question should be whether Britain is withdrawing from the frying pan only to take refuge in the fire.

Donald Trump is eager to see a no-deal Brexit.  The reason he wants the Brits to leave without a deal is that if Britain leaves the EU regulatory zone, he can hope to bring Britain into the US regulatory zone.  And make no mistake, if Britain joins the US regulatory zone, it will not be as an equal partner, but has subordinate dependency.

Likewise, Vladimir Putin is eager to see Britain crash out of the EU without a deal, and his motives are obvious. What he wants is for the British economy to tank and Russia to come forward as the rescuer.  This will, of course, mean reducing Britain to a subordinate dependency -- of Russia.

So maybe the real question to ask Brexit supporters is not whether they are prepared to accept the loss of non-English Britain and the tanking of the economy for the sake of restoring England's sovereignty.  The question should be whether ending up as a subordinate dependency of either the US or Russia rates as sovereignty and, if not, whether it is a preferable infringement on sovereignty to the EU.

A Note on the Debt Ceiling

I am of mixed minds about the quiet, no-drama raising of the debt ceiling.  On the one hand, the debt ceiling should not be a hostage and all such games of chicken should be discouraged.

On the other hand, for Republicans to hold the debt ceiling hostage and Democrats not to does feel rather like unilateral disarmament.

On the whole, I think the Democrats did the right thing to raise the debt ceiling with a minimum of fuss.  After a big, dramatic showdown with Obama, Republicans ultimately appear to have decided that such showdowns are more trouble than they are worth.  So maybe -- maybe -- we just might be seeing a broken norm being restored.

Of course, a much better option would have been to do away with the debt ceiling altogether and prevent any future such showdowns.

Do We Have a Warped Set of Priorities?

Consider recent stories regarding Donald Trump.

Asylum seekers, including children, are being held in overcrowded and inhumane conditions.  The Trump Administration claims to have a third country agreement requiring all asylum seekers to seek and be refused asylum in Guatemala before coming here.  The Administration is making other plans to cut the number of asylum seekers admitted to near zero.  Steve Miller is also seeking a plan to greatly reduce the number of green card holders.  Donald Trump put out a tweet to four non-white Congresswomen who oppose him to "go back home" and led crowds chanting "Send her back!" about the only one of the four who is not U.S. born.

Which one of these developments gets the most attention?  The last, of course.  The first, asylum seekers held in inhumane conditions, has gotten some attention, mostly because of the Squad's attempts to draw attention to it.  But the changes in immigration policy have flown mostly under the radar.

Part of this is the media's Washington focus.  It is easier to focus on the President's latest outrageous tweets than developments taking place along the border, let alone prospective changes affecting mostly people in other countries.  But let's face it, We, the People, are not blameless here either.  It really is easier to focus on a story about a famous guy that lots of ordinary folks we never heard of.  Especially if those ordinary folks aren't even fellow citizens. 

On the one hand, to report the tweets without the policy is to strip them of all context.  It allows Trump supporters to portray him as harmless, just a little rough around the edges, and to dismiss objections to him as mere trifles of aesthetics.  Bigoted tweets look a lot less like a harmless blowing off steam when you see the bigoted policies that lie behind them.

On the other hand, let's face it.  There are people who are not bigots who support Trump's basic immigration policy, although they would prefer a more humane way of carrying it out.  And even more people simply can't bring themselves to care about anyone who is not a fellow citizen.  We should not make immigration policy outside the bounds of reasonable discourse.

And Trump's tweets show what sort of regard he has for a lot of fellow citizens.  And increasingly, the tweets and the rallies show that even Trump tweets are not a mere roughness of style, or a trifle of aesthetics.  The tweets and the rallies are active attempts to rile up the mob and inflame people's basest passions.  And such actions are very dangerous indeed.

Brexit is Going About How I Expected

When Salon used the purported Venn Diagram on the left to show the options for Brexit, I was unduly annoyed at the abuse of Venn Diagrams, but I could see what the outcome would be.  The diagram showed three alternatives.  A deal between Britain and the EU would be acceptable to Leave voters and would not crash the British economy, but was not acceptable to the EU, which wanted Britain to suffer.  A new referendum (with Leave probably failing) was acceptable to the EU and would not crash the British economy, but was not acceptable to Leave voters.  And crashing out without a deal was acceptable to both Leave voters and the EU, but would crash the British economy.

I could see how that was going to end up.  Either a deal or a referendum would force someone to back down in a humiliating fashion, and that obviously wasn't going to happen.  So if everyone dug in their heals, the only possible outcome was for Britain to crash out without a deal and let the chips fall where they may.

Of course, I was wrong about some things.  The EU did, after all, agree to give Britain a deal.  But Leave voters and leaders found the terms humiliating and unacceptable, so they turned it down.  The Brits needed some time to dither and delay in order to accept the pain of a no-deal exit as preferable to the humiliation of any deal the EU would offer, but they appear to have gotten there.  The delay also served the useful purpose of allowing the Brits to stockpile supplies for the initial shock of exit, so Brexit will doubtless be less painful that it would have been if it had happened sooner.

I recommended that what the Brits needed was a top-notch demagogue to sufficiently stoke their anger at being made an example of that they could see Brexit as a sort of war -- a replay of the WWI with their leader as a latter day Winston Churchill, the German-led EU as the Nazis, and the hardships associated with a no-deal leave as sort of like bombing during the Blitz.  That is, in fact, just what is happening now.  Although the British are not usually distinguished for their demagogues, three appear to have risen to the occasion -- Boris Johnson, Jeremy Corbyn, and Nigel Farage.  I am inclined to see Johnson as the least bad choice among them -- someone we can hope will direct British anger only at the EU and not at immigrants (as with Farage) or Jews (as with Corbyn).

Of course, I made the same suggestion to the Greeks when facing the possibility of Grexit.  They should combine skilled economic planning for leaving the euro (but not the EU) with a top-notch demagogue to treat the EU/Germans as Nazis and the ensuing hardships as the equivalent of WWII.  Admittedly, good planning and good demagogues do not often go together.  And, in the end, the Greeks backed down, not ready yet -- emotionally or technocratically -- to deal with the upheaval that would follow.  Perhaps if they had dragged out the negotiations for longer they might have both made adequate preparations to soften the blow as much as possible (though it would still have been severe) and to stoke public anger far enough the accept the Grexit and ensuing hardships.

Well, the Brits have had more than long enough now to make plans, and long enough to build public anger to where it can take No Deal.  They have also managed a reasonable division of labor -- Theresa May as the sober leader who made necessary plans to soften the impact of a no-deal Brexit, and Boris Johnson as the demagogue who will fire up the public to accept the pain of impact, whatever that may be.