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.