In the past year, some of my Medium articles have alluded to a Democratic Party oligarchy in the United States.
I was expecting some pushback from the Medium echo chamber. But it seems my few readers are either reading my work a bit too fast to see this subtle note, or maybe they have reckoned me to be a bigger fool than they already think I am. After all, I am advocating for a total replacement of all democratic systems in the world.
But back to this essay, I think most readers can see how a Republican oligarchy is possible.
But Democrat? Come on, Dave!
Before November 5
My Mastodon feed is already reporting small-scale violence toward poll workers and polling stations, a month before the election. If this escalates, the legitimacy of the entire election could be in doubt. Both sides could have an interest in this outcome — as long as they can make it appear the other side started it.
It’s a long shot, but maybe Joe Biden just might take some kind of action. . . . like suspend the election. Remember, a recent Supreme Court ruling said sitting presidents are no longer accountable.
After November 5
In a recent article, I have predicted a lot of political violence after November 5, 2024
The Harris Administration will have to handle that violence. They might have to resort to less-than-democratic means, like utilizing obscure laws to arrest and detain subversives without the usual checks-and-balances between the citizens and the state. Even though most of us will not be affected, I would call this situation a quasi-oligarchy. It will last at least one year. Even after the Democratic Party subdues the violence, they just might keep this situation active for a lot longer, putting fear into their political enemies. Is this not what oligarchies do?
Again, plausible but unlikely. But here is a better way for a Democrat oligarchy to form.
The lack of political opposition
One foundation stone of Western democracy is the political party in opposition. It is regarded as an important check-and-balance that keeps Western democracy working as it does. Here are its basic functions.
First, the opposition party has the freedom to point out what it feels are the flaws and errors of the governing party. The governing party is forced to defend its decisions with its counter-rhetoric. As rhetoric is exchanged, the voters can evaluate the rhetoric from both sides — and cast their vote accordingly. Or so goes the political theory.
Second, another purpose for the opposition party is that it is a government in waiting. History has proven that governing parties eventually need to be replaced. And they should be replaced by parties that know something about governing. The opposition party, with its experience of attacking the governing party, becomes the viable alternative. With their political experience before they became the government, the opposition party is not exactly a raw amateur.
Let’s assume Kamala Harris becomes President and her administration quells the violence. What happens next?
Electorally speaking, the Republican Party will have been humiliated with a big electoral loss. It will also suffer from its association with the quelled violence.
Usually, a losing political party undergoes some introspection and makes some adjustments to make itself more appealing to win the next election. But it is uncertain whether this Republican Party will go through a re-invention process. Even with Mr. Trump not being the leader, the party may still prefer its current approach to politics, which is not inclusionary of the 70% of Americans with an inclusionary vision. These are not normal times.
Or the Republican Party may go through that transformation. If so, there is a psyche that has been inculcated into the party that needs to be removed. A lot of high-ranking Republicans need to lose their positions in the internal Republican apparatus — and they will not go away easily. There could be an internal tug-of-war that would hamper the ability of the Republicans to be an effective opposition at the national level.
Yes, the Republicans will still win some elections: maybe 25% of the seats in Congress. Maybe 10 states will still have Republican governors. But the Republicans will be in too much disarray to proffer a serious opposition worthy of moving back into the government at the national level. The more important elections will be the Democratic primaries. Democracy has been moved from “all the people” to the registered Democrats.
So, I am estimating the Democrat Party will have a 10-year monopoly of political power. They can ride through the next two election cycles without fear of losing. And that will bring an oligarchy mindset, even though democracy is still on the surface.
If the Republicans do not improve, the Democrats can go lower and still stay in power for a long time. It’s part of that lesser-evil way of thinking.
Maybe the Democrats will become the proactive party the USA needs. But as my loyal readers know, I don’t have much faith in partisan politics for the 21st century — especially when there is no real opposition party capable of assuming power. Without a viable alternative for Americans to vote for, it is more likely the D’s will fall into disunity, scandal, and internal power gathering — and still win elections. I would not bet on much progressive legislation happening in this oligarchy.
Making room for more parties
The states of Alaska and Maine have been experimenting with ranked choice voting (RCV). More states are showing interest in this new way. I believe this voting will increase the influence of third parties, breaking the two-party hegemony of the D’s and R’s.
However, I am reading all sorts of complaints about this new way of voting. Partisan supporters don’t like the outcome when their preference wins the first round of counting but does not win the final round. Too many independent voters are confused with placing a #2 on their ballot. I think the oligarchic Democrats can use this backlash to stop this new way of voting. Here’s why.
With RCV, the sensible Republicans have incentive to split the party. The sensible side can find its more sensible leader, who can take the more sensible policies and vision directly to the voting public — without the baggage of the whacky Republicans. The sensible Republicans will get many #1 votes. They will also get many #2 votes from the whacky Republicans and the Democrats. If the sensible Republicans win elections (probably with two rounds of counting), they can govern in a sensible Republican way.
But the Democrats would not want to see sensible Republicans governing. So the Democrats will keep the sensible Republicans and whacky Republicans fighting in the same tent. The Democrats want the Republicans to stay as a weak foil for as long as possible. This means no further movement for RCV.
As well, the Democratic Party doesn’t want its progressive wing to go off on its own way either. That wing might be too sensible for many voters as well. Many high-ranking Democrats could lose their status, influence, and power if the progressive wing starts resonating with Americans. Better to keep this wing inside the D tent than outside, muffling the progressive message. Current power brokers would not want to see an RCV ballot — even though there appears increasing public support for this idea.
Am I making sense?
One trouble with political forecasting is that things can change quickly in politics.
On June 26, who would have thought there would be enough of a political force to convince Joe Biden to drop out? And how the D’s rallied around Ms. Harris so quickly? I didn’t call this. Did you?
This essay is based on the D’s getting a 65/35 split and being able to handle the R violence after November 5. With the polls still saying 50/50, that 65/35 split looks a long way off. If you give me 5-to-1 odds, I would put a little money on that 65/35 split. The motivation of the soft support voters is lining up for a big Democrat victory.
If the 65/35 split does happen, maybe I’ll earn some credit for being a credible political fortune teller. But gaining such credibility is not the purpose of this essay. Besides, I have been wrong a few too many times in my political predictions.
The real purpose
All the political intrigue I’ve been writing about is more to demonstrate about how dysfunctional our current democracies are. We are more consumed with “who” than with “what.” We put so much of our political energy into the “who.” If the Democrats get that 10-year monopoly of political power, there will be just as much “who” talk as we are having today. Except the discussion is mostly about the players inside the Democratic Party, as the Republicans will not be much of a political force.
Is it not time for something better?
I really invite you to investigate my alternative democracy. No Democrats. No Republicans. No Liberals. No Conservatives. No socialists or capitalists. No noisy elections. No balloons or lawn signs. No attack ads on TV and social media. No manipulating soft support voters.
Instead, the TDG (Tiered Democratic Governance) just finds the more capable people, many of whom would never play the game of party politics. The TDG puts these people together to discuss, deliberate, and decide on the “whats” of our society. Many of us will accept their decision. Some will believe the decisions are fair and effective. Some will remember how the former way was so messed up and don’t want to go back to that. Some will be willing to let the decision play out than to assume we — on the outside — are so much more smarter than those on the inside.
It’s time for a new way.
RCV is nice, but we need to go further. Much further.
Published on Medium 2024
Environmentalists Should Build the TDG
I Tried to Save the World in 2009
