Help
(Part 3 of the series “Why voting for Kamala Harris is only the first step to saving American democracy”)
What Happens When Our Democracy Doesnât Evolve as Fast as Society Does?
When my father took me along to the polling station for the first time, it felt like a grand ritual. It was a ceremony that connected us to something much largerâa voice in shaping the nation. But as the years passed, that ritual lost much of its power, as it did for many others. Voting, which once symbolized agency, began to feel less like a genuine expression of control and more like an empty gesture. Today, more and more Americans are asking: Is voting enough? Why does it feel like our democracy is no longer capable of solving our problems?
The One Vote on the Ballot: A Model from Another Era
The fundamental problem lies in the structure of our representative democracyâa structure that has remained largely unchanged while society has evolved. The current democratic model, what I call the “one mark on the ballot” approach, originated in a simpler, less complex world. After World War II, the idea of voting for a candidate every few years made sense. People saw themselves as part of coherent groupsâworking-class, middle-class. And these identities were not only cultural alignments, but contained their positions in thousands of decisions to be made to improve their lives. This partitioning of representation was a natural fit for societies where individuals largely identified with stable social classes.
But today, we live in a different world. The concept of identity has become far more fluid and complex. People do not fit neatly into the rigid categories that traditional representative systems are built around. Instead, we navigate a multitude of identitiesâeconomic, cultural, geographical, ideologicalâeach of which plays a role in how we perceive our interests and desires. Our representative system, based on a simplistic partition of society, cannot capture this complexity.
In the mid-20th century, voting provided a sense of indirect efficacyâpeople could see their chosen party in power and feel that their voice had an impact on the direction of the country. Today, however, our society has become individualized, interconnected, and more diverse, but our institutions have not kept pace. The “one mark on the ballot” approach is insufficient to express the many layers of our identities and the complexities of our views. As a result, many feel politically homelessâunable to find a party or a candidate that represents the whole spectrum of what they care about.
Stagnation Breeds Disillusionment
This stagnation of political representation has serious consequences. It fosters a sense of disillusionment among citizens who no longer see themselves in the candidates on the ballot. When the political system fails to represent the complexities of modern identities, people lose trust in it. And when people do not feel represented, they also do not feel a sense of ownership over political outcomes. This disconnect is evident in declining voter turnout, a growing distrust in political institutions, and the rise of political extremes that promise to shake up the status quo.
We often hear that people are apathetic, but this isnât true. People care deeply about the issues that affect their livesâwhether itâs climate change, healthcare, economic security, or social justice. The problem is that they donât see the system as capable of addressing these issues. They donât feel that their participation will make a difference, because the structures in place are outdated and unresponsive to the realities of modern life.
Consider the analogy of a 20th-century factory that continues to produce the same model of car while consumer demands have evolved dramaticallyâas was the case with the Trabant model produced in the former GDR, the Ford Crown Victoria, or the Chevrolet Impala. The factory refuses to update its production line, and as a result, its cars become increasingly irrelevant in the market. Our democratic institutions, much like that factory, have failed to evolve in response to societal changes. They still produce the same type of representation, expecting it to fit the increasingly diverse needs of a 21st-century citizenry. The problem is not that the system is rigged, but that it is rigid.
The Consequences of a Rigid System: Polarization and Alienation
This disconnect between political institutions and social realities has contributed to a dangerous polarization. When people feel they must align with one of two broad and rigid categories, they are forced to prioritize one aspect of their identity over others. For instance, someone who cares deeply about both environmental protection and economic freedom might find no party that represents both of those values effectively. Instead, they have to choose, sacrificing one concern for another, which leads to frustration and division.
Moreover, this kind of representation encourages zero-sum thinking. When representation is partitioned into binary choices, the outcome is often a winner-takes-all approach to politics. This dynamic, in turn, fosters a sense of alienation among those whose views are not fully represented by any party. This is one of the root causes of the increased polarization we are witnessing today.
This disconnect manifests through mechanisms that drive polarization and societal disillusionment, including the alienation of voters whose preferences are not adequately represented, and the increasing dominance of extreme voices in political parties as moderates disengage.
In this environment, political discourse becomes increasingly antagonistic. The nuance that used to characterize debates over policy is lost, replaced by tribal loyalty and a deep suspicion of the “other side.” People are less willing to engage with perspectives different from their own because the system frames politics as a battle for dominance rather than a collaboration to address shared challenges. The system itself, by not evolving, has created the conditions for its own dysfunction.
What We Need: A More Adaptive Democracy
If we are to address the crisis of polarization and alienation, we need a new approach to representationâone that is flexible, inclusive, and capable of reflecting the diversity of modern identities. We need a democracy that allows people to engage with politics in a way that aligns with their multifaceted lives. This means moving beyond the one mark on the ballot and creating opportunities for ongoing participation.
Our institutions must adapt to provide meaningful avenues for participation beyond elections. People should have the ability to decide not just who represents them every few years, but also how they want to be involved in specific decisions. Imagine a system where citizens could choose to participate directly on issues that matter most to them, or delegate their representation to trusted individuals or organizations who share their values. Such a system would not only give people more control but also ensure that political representation is dynamic and responsive.
This kind of adaptive democracy would reduce polarization by allowing individuals to express the full spectrum of their views rather than forcing them into predefined categories. It would allow people to feel heard, and to see their preferences reflected in real time, rather than waiting years for the opportunity to vote for a candidate who only partially aligns with their beliefs.
The Path Forward: Building a Democracy for the 21st Century
Our current crisis is not just one of leadership or policy; it is a crisis of structure. The institutions that once worked well for a simpler, less connected world are failing to meet the demands of todayâs society. We need to rethink how representation works. We need a system that allows for both direct participation and the delegation of decision-making power to trusted representativesâa system that is flexible enough to capture the complexities of our identities and the realities of our interconnected world.
Such a transformation wonât be easy, but it is essential if we are to restore faith in democracy. By embracing new forms of representation, we can create a political system that doesnât just work for the people, but with the people. In the next post, we will delve into the three mechanisms by which our outdated system of representation actively fuels polarization and societal disillusionment, setting the stage for the need for a more adaptive model of representation.