America is approaching the 250th anniversary of its national independence. Our country has had a good long run. Some Americans will be content congratulating ourselves on our collective past. Others will want to know if the next quarter-millennium will be as good as the last. In an occasional series, I'll look at this question from various perspectives. Today's topic: democracy.
In the first decade under the Constitution, only a small proportion of Americans voted in elections. The franchise—the right to vote—was largely confined to adult white males who owned property and had lived in one place for several years.
Things changed in the early 19th century as western states enticed settlers by offering them the franchise without property or residence restrictions, and eastern states self-defensively did the same. This expansion of the franchise reflected and propelled the embrace of the idea of democracy: that ordinary people should exercise political power.
The expansion increased upon adoption of the 15th Amendment, which forbade racial restrictions on voting. In the following decades, voter turnout in presidential elections—the percentage of persons eligible to vote who actually cast a ballot—topped 80 percent. This would be the historic high point for this statistic, as of 2024.
Yet it is misleading in that it ignores the half of the population—women—who still couldn’t vote in most places. Their guarantee of the franchise awaited the 19th Amendment, ratified in time for the 1920 elections. The amendment didn’t change the turnout figures much. Women voted in about the same percentages as men. But it roughly doubled the overall portion of the population that voted.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 expanded the franchise further. Southern states had subverted the 15th Amendment and suppressed black turnout. The new law, in combination with the 24th Amendment, which forbade poll taxes, made this more difficult. Millions of black people who hadn’t voted now did.
The 26th Amendment, approved in time for the 1972 elections, lowered the voting age to 18. This response to the activism of the 1960s, especially regarding the Vietnam war, brought college students and others their age to the polls.
It also turned out to be the last broad expansion of the franchise, as of 2024. Three sizable segments of the population remain ineligible to vote: minors under 18, noncitizen—unnaturalized—immigrants, and felons. Possibly the minimum voting age could be lowered again, perhaps to 16, the age at which driving becomes legal in many states. Yet there isn’t much demand for this extension, even among the young people who would benefit. Noncitizens were allowed to vote in some states in the 19th century, but the practice fell out of use in the 1920s and was forbidden in federal elections by federal law in the 1990s. It could be revived if America becomes much more welcoming of immigrants (see a later installment in this series). But that won’t happen soon. Some states have allowed felons who have completed their sentences to vote. This reform could catch on, but it’s meeting stiff resistance.
For the time being, the right to vote has spread about as far as it can. American democracy is close to its theoretical limits.
It might already have passed its practical limits. Voter turnout declined from over 80 percent in the Gilded Age to around 60 percent in the 20th and early 21st centuries. It popped up to 67 percent in 2020, when 158 million votes were cast. But even this represented less than half the population of the United States. And the number seemed likely to fall after the polarizing figure of Donald Trump left the stage.
If it did, America would return to the situation it had been in for a century, where two-fifths of eligible voters declined to cast ballots. Given this evidence of chronic apathy, one has to wonder about the future of American democracy.
If two-fifths of Americans don't vote, and another fifth can't vote, how important, really, is democracy to Americans as a people? How badly would we miss it if it went away? If someone promised quick results at the expense of certain democratic norms, how many of us would accept the bargain?
Democracy is under strain at present. The crucial feature of any democracy is acceptance of defeat by the losers. Donald Trump broke this rule in 2020 and continues to flout it. More ominously, a majority of the Republican party has endorsed his rejection of the 2020 results.
Some of Trump's followers acted violently on his lead in January 2021. Their effort to overturn the election failed. It did so not least because it was unorganized. Presumably they will be better organized the next time. Should Trump lose in 2024, and should he refuse to accept his defeat, the violence might be worse. Law enforcement authorities will be better prepared the second time around, but this might cause an escalation of the violence. The very fact that the authorities have to make such preparations is evidence that American democracy is in trouble. Democracy is about resolving our differences at the ballot box, not in the streets.
Possibly November's election will go off without a hitch. If Kamala Harris loses, Democrats are unlikely to protest the way Republicans have. Yet this outcome will ratify Trump's rejection of 2020. A working majority of Americans—meaning a majority of their electors—will have indicated that they're not particularly bothered by Trump's trampling of the fundamental principle of democracy.
If Trump loses, he likely will reject defeat again. Whether or not violence follows at once, he will have established a dangerous precedent, whereby the leader of one of the two major parties rejects the basic idea of democracy. Maybe the Republicans at that point will turn their backs on Trump. But such a prediction seems more hopeful than likely. What then will become of American democracy, when half of the two-party duopoly has abandoned it?
American self-government began a quarter-millennium ago. By two centuries ago it had taken the form of democracy. Will American democracy last another two centuries?
The more pressing question is whether it will last another two years or decades. If it does, its prospects for continued long life will be good. It will have survived its most severe challenge since the Civil War.
If it doesn't, all bets are off.
I disagree with a LOT of what is said in this post. However, I like the "column". Should I state my views and get "read out of meeting" (canceled)? (I am a self professed libertarian.)
For now, I will just say that a lot of what is in this post is questionable -- or, at least, requires way more explanation. The author seems to be injecting his political views.
For now, I down vote this post and won't forward it to anyone.
Here's a question: Why should a person 30 years old be allowed to vote when that person demonstrates no understanding of American history or how America works or love for America? If a 3rd grade elementary school student can pass an 1830's "voting" test administered only to black folks, should he or she be a voter? The 30 year old is easily susceptible to propaganda (money)? The 3rd grader?
Why shouldn't all voters be required to pass a test -- just like drivers, pilots, lawyers, plumbers, bar tenders, drone operators, surveyors, Ph.D.'s in history, ...?
The "South" was correct (IMHO) when it created a "test" for eligibility to vote.
However, the "South" erred in its application of the law. The "South" used the "test" to prevent the "South"'s enemies from voting. The "South" at that time was rich white folks and slave owners (<10% of the white population!). The "South" was immoral.
TRANSLATION: After the 15th Amendment,
a minority of white folks hated black folks.
Those white folks were in power and came
up with a voting eligibility "test" to specifically
weed out black folks from the franchise. It worked.
SUMMARY:
"Test": good (IMHO)
Selective application: Horrible and immoral.
How would the "test" have worked out
had it been applied to ALL citizens; age, skin color, sex, nationality,
notwithstanding?
I think "the South" had it right. Those who created and
enforced the "test" just used a law that should have applied to
everyone to apply only to those the minority, in power, hated.
IMHO, The law and the morality thereof
are good; execution was co-opted by white
democrat politicians. We all know how that turned out.
(Ever read one of those "test"s?)
The antebellum southern democrat politicians, who hated
all black folks, used the "test" to remove black folks from
the "franchise".
Antebellum White Southern Democrat Politicians == BAD FORM! (IMHO)
BTW: Predicting the future is very very hard.
If they want everyone to vote, they need to make it mandatory to do so at a certain day and time, as Australia does (and they make it fun!).