Today in class we launched into an interesting discussion of democratic backsliding. I believe it was Tasha, in the back row, who made pointed observations on the relative levels of democracy in the US versus countries of Europe that feature coalition politics and parliamentary systems. The US does not practice coalition politics because there are two parties, so that one of them typically has a majority in some political arena (the House, Senate or Presidency). This is a consequence of Duverger's Law, named after a French political scientist who observed that single-round first-past-the post electoral systems tend to deliver two parties. In Europe, in contrast, electoral regimes are either multi-round first-past-the-post, or proportional, or blended, which leads to more than two parties and makes coalition politics often necessary.
Tasha argued that European democracies are more democratic than the US because the latter features several institutional peculiarities that make it deviate from pure democratic principles. For instance, the Senate and electoral college attribute more weight to small, rural areas, violating the rule of "one person, one vote". This is known as malapportionment. Tasha also mentioned partisan redistricting as a departure from strictly democratic norms, since parties in control of certain states can draw congressional boundaries to benefit themselves (both parties practice this). There are several other examples, if not in the rules, then at least in the practice of American democracy, that have come under criticism. For instance, issues of voter suppression, low turnout, and undue influence by deep-pocketed interests are often highlighted to criticize the functioning of US political institutions.
Tasha's arguments amounted to a statement that the US is less democratic than European countries, and perhaps also that it is backsliding away from democracy at a faster rate. I expressed skepticism. The truth is that I find this to be a fascinating question, but that I am not sure of what I believe one way or another. I can certainly see merits in Tasha's position - and accept and recognize the distortions that she identified in the US system - yet the picture seems more complex. Here are some things I would be comfortable arguing:
1) If one defines democracy as responsiveness to voter preferences, then I am not sure that coalition politics dominate over the US system. We have undergone several alternations of power between the parties in recent electoral cycles in the US. When George W Bush was elected, he had a majority in the House and Senate (though not for long when it comes to the Senate). When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, he had a House majority and a filibuster-proof Senate majority (although again the latter did not last very long). Then when Donald Trump won in 2016, he again had a trifecta, and so did Joe Biden in 2020, and again Trump in 2024. In other words, control of the US Federal government has alternated frequently between the parties, reflecting swings in the preferences of the electorate. I am not sure we have seen the same thing in coalition-based countries in Europe (I am excluding Britain from this discussion, as it has Duverger-like tendencies due to single-member district elections with a single round of voting). Indeed, the coalitions usually involve the same usual suspects. For instance in Germany, SPD-CDU coalitions are common. France currently is attempting a coalition of disparate parties but France swung sharply to the right in the recent election, and this is not reflected in the composition of the various governments that President Macron is attempting to put together. In sum, coalition-based politics are not very responsive to swings in voter preferences, at least in the short run.
2) Some of the distortions that Tasha deplored in the US also exist in Europe. France has a Senate and the UK has a House of Lords. Neither of these institutions are very democratic. While the financing of campaigns is often publicly funded in Europe, there are other ways for interest groups to affect public policies. For instance in France, business leaders often come from the same schools and social networks as politicians, and there is a revolving door between politics, civil service, trade unions and the private sector. I have personal knowledge of many such examples. It is not transparent, it involves less money, but it entails just as much influence of politics by special interests - maybe more. All these countries, including the US, have work to do to make their institutions more democratic, more transparent, and more responsive to the electorate.
3) Despite these defects, modern democracies are very democratic by historical standards. Whether it is the US, the UK, Germany, Japan, South Korea, France or any number of advanced industrial democracies, there are vibrant, pluralistic electorates. These electorates are frequently consulted through elections of various kinds. The number of decisions that a US voter is asked to make every two years - federal and local - is simply staggering. There has never been a period in history when voters had such control over who governs them. And when you compare industrial democracies to autocracies of various kinds, there is a huge institutional gulf. When it comes to political rights, I would much rather be a citizen of the above-listed countries than of Russia, China, or even Turkey. Whether the US is more or less democratic than some others is a very interesting - and unresolved - question. But all these countries are very democratic, and I don't see the prospect of a sustained and steep decline in democracy in any of them in the near future.