The United States, long heralded as a beacon of democracy, is facing a crisis of legitimacy. As we peel back the layers of our political system, examining everything from candidate selection to the distribution of power within our government, we are confronted with a troubling question: Is the United States truly a functioning democracy? Our report dives into the hard truths behind our electoral processes, tactics used by both major parties to influence elections, and the erosion of checks and balances, revealing a system that may be democratic in name, but falls far short in practice. The evidence we present may be very uncomfortable for some, but it is essential reading for anyone who values the principles of true representative government and seeks to understand the reality of American democracy today.

How Do We Define a Properly Functioning Democracy?

While many publications have taken a stab at what it means to have a functioning democracy, we felt it might be better to ask people. After all, voters are the primary participants in the democratic process and therefore should have the final say on what they feel a properly functioning democracy consists of. Only then, can we determine if the US meets the standard.

Candidate Competitiveness
Those we spoke with indicated a functioning democracy should have regular elections, but more importantly, competitive regular elections. So what is considered competitive? For this, we used a business analogy. First, we looked at the mobile phone industry. Many voters we spoke to considered competition in the industry to be good, but not ideal. There are three major players in the US: T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T. Additionally, there many others known as MVNO providers. While these companies are independent, they are actually reselling service from the three major providers. While pricing and customer service may differ, you are still putting money into the coffers of the big three when you use these services. A related political analogy would be how DSA backs socialist-minded political candidates but nearly all of them run as Democrats, who want little to do with socialist policy. While you may feel like you are sticking it to the man by using Cricket Wireless, AT&T is still getting a cut of your monthly bill. Nonetheless, with three major competitors and a handful of smaller ones, most consumers we spoke to considered competition here to be reasonable.

Next, we assessed at the airline industry. With four major firms, Delta, American, United, and Southwest, plus several smaller boutique airlines (eg. Spirit) it appears on paper to be even more competitive than the mobile phone industry. But consumers we spoke with who fly were far more likely to call the airline industry less competitive. While many reported pricing to be competitive, service complaints were rampant and it is easy to see why. Unlike most consumer services, airlines routinely fail to provide the service you paid for (eg. your flight is delayed for hours or even into the following day) and there are no ramifications for doing so. Worse, nearly every carrier is guilty of the practice on 20% of all flights. If your cell carrier only provided you 6GB of data for the month instead of the 10GB you paid for or your service was only up and running for 75% of the day, surely complaints would soar and consumers would be very unhappy, despite there being numerous competitors.

Our takeaway is that voters expect competition in their elections: both numerous competitors and candidates who have something unique to offer. If all candidates have the same general ideology or use the same talking points, this is not considered competitive. But as few as three major candidates can be competitive if they have unique viewpoints to offer.

Proper Checks and Balances
A properly functioning democracy has safeguards in place to prevent any one branch of government from “taking over” the country. This means if the President spectacularly fails his or her duties, there should be a mechanism for the people to remove them from office. If your representative or senator in Congress crashes and burns, there should be a mechanism to replace them with a better public servant. Lastly, if a judge produces repetitive opinions that demonstrate indications of corruption or a lack of competence, the people should have the authority to remove them from the bench.

Anti-Corruption Measures
Lastly, a properly functioning democracy has rules that are strictly enforced to prevent any one individual or group of officials from legislating or ruling based on monetary donations, gifts, promises of a job after office, and so on. Ideally, those tasked with enforcing these rules should not include anyone who would be subject to the them, as this in of itself would produce non-ideal results.

While there are other factors that certainly contribute to a healthy, properly functioning democracy, competitive elections, checks and balances, and anti-corruption are the very basics of what many consider to be a well-oiled machine of democracy.

Do We Have Competitive Elections?

We will start small and pick a random town here in Rhode Island: Cumberland. In the last Presidential Election year, 2020, this town of 36,000 residents held 25 different races for various seats in town and statewide. These included School Committee, Town Council, and State Senate. Of those 25 races, a staggering 19 of them had only one candidate run in the General Election, awarding the race to that person by default. This included important seats such as Mayor, 4 out of 6 Town Council seats, and 5 out of 6 seats in the General Assembly.

Cumberland is hardly an outlier. In November of 2022, Providence (which had far more seats up for grabs than in 2020) held races for 39 seats. Of those, 25 featured an unopposed candidate in the General Election. As with Cumberland, the Mayor had no opponent in November. Of the 23 General Assembly seats up for grabs, 14 were unopposed. City Council races fared no better. While this situation was not the case everywhere, towns like Smithfield (which had competition in most of its races during the last two elections) were the exception across most RI cities and towns.

According to RI Rank, in the last statewide election in 2022, 48% of the winning candidates for General Assembly seats had no opponent. This means if you were a progressive living in a conservative district, your likely choices were a) the conservative candidate, b) not voting. Likewise, if you lived in Dominick Ruggerio’s district and felt he was not conservative enough, your choices were a) vote for Ruggerio, b) not voting. Sure, you can write in a candidate and frankly, you should in any election where you dislike the candidates presented. But it is hard to deny that the two major parties have offered up a lack of choice for state office in about half of all races.

Some argue that the real competition happens in the primaries. But in 2022, of the 113 seats at the RI State House, only 40 districts offered more than one choice on the Democrat’s side and just 3 offered multiple options for Republican voters.

The Governor’s seat featured a healthy primary race with five candidates carrying established backgrounds running for the job. The GOP primary was less competitive with only two candidates declared. As a result, a historically unpopular Dan McKee still managed a nearly 20-point victory over GOP rival Ashley Kalus.

Nationally, the situation is more grim. During the November 2022 election, Congressional job approval sat at 22%. Yet despite this blanket disapproval, competitive elections were few and far between. Of the 435 U.S. House elections in 2022, a total of 32 races featured no opponent at all from one of the two major parties – the incumbent won their seat automatically. Even more concerning, the average victory margin for contested races was a whopping 28 percentage points, indicating a lack of serious competition.

The Presidential election is one race in which it is assured that the major parties will both run candidates. We examined the quality of the candidates and the competition that led to their nomination. In 2016, the Republican Party held competitive primaries. Donald Trump was declared the nominee after he had tallied an overwhelming number of delegate votes, beating Ted Cruz fair and square for the nomination. The GOP did not strategically cancel primaries or use any party tricks (excuse the pun) to steer the nomination to Trump and they deserve credit for keeping the race fair. The Democratic Party, however, utilized a controversial practice where party insiders known as Superdelegates committed in advance to support their preferred nominee, Hillary Clinton, before any primary votes were cast by Americans. The national media counted these Superdelegates in its delegate count during primary season, creating the appearance that Clinton had enormous voter support over her rival, Bernie Sanders, when in fact voters had not yet hit the polls. Studies show this can be considered an undemocratic practice as lower-information voters often side with the primary candidate who is winning public polls so they can support the “winning team”. On July 22, 2016 Wikileaks published leaked emails from DNC operatives that derided Bernie Sanders’ campaign and discussed ways to advance Clinton’s nomination. The leaks also showed DNC Chair Donna Brazile had leaked primary debate questions to Clinton before the debates were held, presumably to give her an advantage over Sanders. Clinton went on to win the nomination and then lost in the general election. Did the Democrats’ primary process truly produce the strongest contender? Would Bernie Sanders have performed better? America will never know.

In 2020, then-President Donald Trump was the Republican nominee and enjoyed tremendous popularity from GOP voters, with an average approval rating exceeding 90%. As a result, the party canceled primaries and nominated Trump. But the Democratic Party’s nominating process was once again controversial. This time, Superdelegates were not used to tip the scales. Possibly as a result of the fairer playing field, Bernie Sanders won the largest share of the vote in the first three state contests and momentum appeared to be in his favor. But just hours after Sanders’ Nevada landslide victory, party operatives coalesced around Joe Biden and constructed a sequence of events that would lead to Biden’s eventual nomination. First, SC Congressman Jim Clyburn quickly endorsed Biden and consolidated support from the Black community, with whom he enjoyed immense popularity. It was enough to help Biden win South Carolina, with Sanders finishing 2nd. On March 1, 2020 with Sanders still polling as the overwhelming favorite in the RealClearPolitics Poll Average and leading in the majority of states preparing to vote on Super Tuesday, nearly all of the moderate candidates suddenly dropped out of the race and endorsed Biden. The consolidation deprived voters of their options well before polls indicated their loss was a given (at this time, four candidates were polling at 10% or higher and all were either beating or within single digits of Biden). Curiously, Elizabeth Warren remained in the race, presumably because she would siphon votes away from Sanders. Biden went on to win the nomination and defeated a vulnerable Donald Trump in the general election.

In 2024, three major candidates ran for the Republican nomination. Again, the GOP did not take any actions that would be deemed to be favoring a single candidate. Donald Trump clinched the nomination on March 12th and won over 76% of the Republican vote overall. The Democratic Party again appeared to thwart the will of a fair number of its voters. In March, despite Joe Biden polling at less than 35% overall and less than 65% from his own party’s voters, and despite clearly visible signs of severe mental decline, the party announced that it was canceling its primaries, and only Biden’s name would appear on most primary ballots. Marianne Williamson and Dean Phillips had attempted to run for the nomination against Biden but were never given the chance to do so. In late June, after what many considered to be a poor and revealing debate performance that caused his polling to drop further behind Donald Trump, calls came from elected Democratic officials, major donors, and large pockets of Democrats for Biden to step down from the nomination. Biden did so on July 21st. Shortly after Biden dropped his bid for re-election, several news outlets published pieces indicating Biden had been in severe decline and incapable of meeting with legislators going back to 2021. Some have speculated that Biden’s condition was hidden to avoid the possibility of an open primary for the 2024 election. As in the past, the Democratic Party quickly coalesced around its chosen candidate, leaving its voters with no choice but to support Kamala Harris if they are to vote Democrat. This time around, voters were never even given the appearance of democracy via a contested primary.

The Democratic Party’s tactics to squash fair elections extends beyond its own primaries and goes as far back as 2004 when they spent massive resources to remove Ralph Nader from the presidential ballot. More recently, in 2020 Democrats on the Wisconsin Election Commission prevented the Green Party, its only major 3rd party competitor, from appearing on the ballot – and from presenting evidence at the hearing. That same year, Democrats pressured those who signed a petition to get the Green Party on the Montana ballot to withdraw their signatures, well after certification had already taken place. Not stopping there, Democrats in Texas sued to kick the Green Party off that state’s ballots after a law was rushed through that required 3rd parties to pay filing fees, a law that was in litigation at the time. The lawsuit was timed right after the deadline for write-in candidates had passed, which prevented Green Party candidates from appearing on the ballot in any form. Putting a bookend on 2020 election interference, Democrats in New York hastily passed a new ballot access law that created arduous requirements for 3rd parties to maintain ballot access, effectively removing the Green Party from all ballots from 2020 to present day. In 2022, Democrats sued to prevent Green Party candidates from appearing on ballots in North Carolina and just like in Montana two years prior, contacted Green Party supporters asking them to withdraw their signatures from the ballot petition because “it would hurt Democrats”.

The Democrats’ quest to block 3rd party competitors from competing has hardly let up as the 2024 elections approach. This year, the Democratic Party in Nevada sued to block not only the Green Party from appearing on presidential ballots, but also independent candidate RFK, Jr. In North Carolina, the Democrat-dominated Board of Elections voted to block Cornell West’s Justice For All party from appearing on the ballot. In fact, the DNC has built a team for 2024 whose sole purpose is to run negative campaigns and present legal challenges against 3rd party candidates. While there is certainly nothing illegal about running negative ads against competitors, it does appear to serve as a tacit admission that the Democratic Party is struggling to win elections on the merit of its candidates.

Republicans are certainly not innocent when it comes to competing fairly in elections. While the party has largely kept its hands off the primary process and allowed its voters to chose candidates without putting their thumb on the scale, GOP-led states have passed dozens of laws to restrict absentee ballots, mail-in ballots, ballot drop boxes, voting hours, voter registration drives, early voting, and voting without a government photo ID. While the party has claimed that the purpose of these bills is to prevent voter fraud, no state has been able to present evidence of voter fraud of any statistical significance in any past election. More likely, the bills were passed because they target methods of voting that historically tend to be more widely used by Democratic party voters.

Outside of the Democrats, the Republicans are most closely challenged by the Libertarian Party. While the GOP has made some feeble and failed attempts to kick Libertarians off the ballot in states like Texas, their efforts have largely been small and unsuccessful. Some GOP-led states such as Tennessee have similar restrictive ballot access requirements as Dem-led states that appear to intentionally block 3rd party candidates. Tennessee’s law, for example, requires 3rd party candidates to obtain 43,000 signatures but requires only 25 signatures from Republicans, Democrats, and independents.

Conclusions:

• In Rhode Island, competition for town/city races in Rhode Island is very poor with approximately 50% of seats unopposed in the general election.
• In Rhode Island, competition for statewide races is poor with a little under half of all seats unopposed in the general election.
• Nationally, competition for congressional seats is lacking with 7% of all races unopposed and large average victory margins for the winner in contested races.
• In Presidential primaries, the Republican Party generally stays on the sidelines and has allowed voters to choose their nominee without undue influence, making their races more fair and competitive. The Democratic Party has used various tactics to control the results of its primaries and actively works to influence who voters choose for the nominee.
• Both major political parties have undertaken egregious actions to undermine free and fair elections. Democrats have fought to prevent 3rd parties from appearing on ballots while Republicans have passed legislation to prevent/restrict methods of voting favored by Democratic voters.

Is the Election System Fair to Voters?

Once races are held, the next question we must answer is: do the results match voter intent? Does majority, in fact, rule? Let’s dive in.

Few would argue that under a fair proportional voting system, the percentage of seats won should reflect the percent of votes won. The data for the 2022 election tells a different tale. For example, in New Mexico, only 55% of voters chose the Democratic nominee for Congress but Democrats occupy all 3 of the state’s House seats. In Iowa, the inverse is true: Republicans control all 4 House seats despite only winning 56% of the vote. In California, Democrats control 77% of the seats but in 2022 carried 63% of the vote. In Arkansas, the GOP holds all 4 seats but scored a mere 67% of the vote.

Why does this happen? Well, first you must understand that each of those House seats represents a district. What is a district? We’d like to believe it is a contiguous area of the state where the people have common interests or some other connection that makes being represented by the same person logical. But this is not how things are typically done. Because partisan representatives in each state are allowed to draw the boundaries for these districts every 10 years and wish to do so for their own party’s advantage, the end results are, in many cases, barely contiguous, bizarrely-shaped areas that make no logical sense. Party officials from both sides rig the districts to deliver a desired outcome – the word for this is gerrymandering. How might this work in our state? Rhode Island has two House districts. District 1 makes up most of the eastern part of the state and District 2 makes up most of the central and western part of the state. Even though District 2 covers a far larger area of the state, its population is roughly the same as District 1. Both districts have reasonably drawn boundaries. Now, let’s pretend Republicans gain control of the state in 2030 and decide to redraw the districts to favor them. First they might look at how Rhode Island voted in past presidential elections. Here is a map of the split in 2016 between Clinton (blue) and Trump (red) voters:

You may notice that the map resembles the split between District 1 and 2. Republicans could redraw the boundaries of District 2 by removing the Democrat-favored areas in the towns of Westerly, Charlestown, S. Kingstown, and Narragansett, and incorporate Republican-favored areas in Smithfield, N. Smithfield, N. Providence, Woonsocket, and Cranston. Now, at least on paper, District 2 would have more Republican voters than Democratic voters. In the next House election, the GOP candidate would have a good chance of winning that seat. Despite the state’s typical 60/40 Democrat to Republican split in voter preference, the House seats would be split 50/50. That is how gerrymandering works, and while it should be illegal, the United States Supreme Court gave its blessing to the practice in a 6-3 ruling during its 2024 session in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP.

This difference is far more pronounced in presidential elections. As we know, a Republican has only won the popular vote once since 1988 (George W. Bush in 2004). Yet, Republicans have won 3 presidential elections in that time. This is due to the unusual way in which the United States actually elects the President. In the US, each state is allocated a block of points called “electoral votes”. Whomever earns the most individual votes in each state (with two exceptions, Maine and Nebraska) wins that state’s electoral votes. But how do we determine how many electoral votes each state gets to award? It is based on the state’s population…sort of. The calculation is a bit complicated and you can read about it here. Suffice to say, more populace states are penalized and receive fewer electoral votes than they should while less populated states receive more than they should. For example, California is allocated one electoral vote per 712,000 people while Wyoming is allocated an electoral vote for every 195,000 people. While the electoral college is supposed to ensure that heavily populated states do not dominate the election, it appears to have swung hard in the other direction. States such as Texas, Florida, New York, and California are heavily underrepresented in Congress, while states such as Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, and yes, Rhode Island, are overrepresented.

Lastly, how are winners determined in our elections and does this represent that most accurate way to measure voter intent?

In nearly all elections, the United States uses a “first past the post” system in which whomever receives the most votes out of all candidates running is declared the winner (a plurality). While the winner usually wins a majority of all votes cast, this is not always the case, and when it happens, it means most voters did not get what they wanted. Take, for example, the 2022 RI race for Governor. In the Democratic primary, Dan McKee only received 32.8% of the the vote. While he received the most votes of any contender, this result meant that an overwhelming 67.2% of Democratic voters wanted someone else rather than Dan McKee to be Governor. This same incident occurred with the race for Mayor of Providence the same year. Brett Smiley won with just 41.8% of the vote in the primary. The majority of Providence voters preferred someone else. In 2014, the race for governor also featured minority winners in the Democratic primary and the general election. Gina Raimondo won the primary with only 42.1% of the vote (56% of voters preferred either Angel Taveras or Clay Pell instead). In the general election, Raimondo narrowly defeated Allan Fung with an anemic 40.7% of the vote, with 57% of voters preferring Fung or Robert Healey. In all of these cases, the winner was the candidate that the majority of voters did not want to win, calling into question the sensibility of a first past the post system.

The fact that a candidate who won the minority of votes can win the election is far from the only disadvantage to first past the post voting. For one, it makes victories by 3rd party candidates very difficult. Voters become so concerned with the opposing party’s candidate winning, that they will often pick the “lesser of two evils” rather than a more credible 3rd party candidate. Essentially, our current voting system shuts down competition and forces voters to choose either the Democratic or Republican party candidate.

The growing alternative to the first past the post system is ranked choice voting (RCV). Ranked choice voting represents a superior method of choosing representation by allowing voters to rank the candidates in order of preference. For example, if the 2024 presidential election used RCV, voters who disliked the two major party contenders could rank 3rd party candidate Jill Stein first and their preferred major party candidate second. If Stein ended up with at least 51% of the vote, she would be the winner and voters who chose her would be elated. No vote wasted. If Stein (and everyone else) ended up with less than 51%, the lowest vote-getter of the three would be eliminated and those who ranked them first would next have their second preferred choice count. Still no vote wasted. This repeats until a candidate has 51% or more of the vote. Here’s a quick 90 second video on how it works:

RCV is often opposed by leaders of the two major parties because it reduces their party’s power, encourages voters to learn about other candidates, and ultimately opens the door for independent candidates to gain a foothold in political office. A list of all jurisdictions that currently used RCV can be found here.

Conclusions:

• District boundaries are most often drawn in a partisan manner designed to give a specific party more seats in Congress than they would have under independently-drawn boundaries.
• Resulting districts leave large swaths of voters in both Republican and Democratic states without any representation of their views in Congress.
• States with large populations have far less representation in Congress per person than the least populated states.
• A presidential candidate can receive millions of votes more than their competitor and lose the race, leading to minority rule.
• Alternative voting methods such as Ranked Choice Voting have been adopted by a growing number of states for lower-level races but have largely been opposed by members of the two major parties because it significant raises the ability for 3rd party and independent candidates to compete.

Do Those in Power Represent Their Constituents?

Now that we’ve covered the process of how officials are elected, we must determine if those we put in power represent our wants and needs. Locally we found that most but not all town representatives, be it members of the School Committee, the Town/City Council, and even some mayors are quite responsive to constituent questions and feedback. More importantly, these folks have power to react quickly and enact change that is responsive to residents’ needs. A few possible explanations: 1) Lobbyists simply do not have the resources to work individual towns like they can with state and federal offices. This leaves constituents as the main feedback mechanism for local legislators. 2) Because so few votes are typically cast in local elections, each vote matters and that means addressing the needs of those that express concerns, if the official wishes to remain in office.

At the state level, politicking begins to play a big part in how things work and constituent power is reduced as a result of the way the General Assembly is structured. At the RI State House, as in most other state assemblies nationwide, the Speaker runs the show in the House and the Senate President runs the show in that chamber. Put more bluntly, they play the role of dictator, deciding which bills are heard and which are banished to the trash bin. Unlike every other member of the House, if Speaker Joe Shekarchi does not want a bill to pass for any reason, it will not. While his ability to pass any bill he wishes is a bit more limited, the Speaker has ultimate veto power and uses it each session to squash hundreds of bills – some of which clearly do not deserve a hearing, and others which simply do not fit his agenda. The same process goes in the Senate. If Dominick Ruggerio does not want, for example, a bill eliminating LEOBoR to pass, it is as good as dead – even if every other senator was in favor of the bill. What does this all mean? That Dominick Ruggerio and Joe Shekarchi’s constituents wield an enormous amount of power well beyond the residents of any other district. These voters can change the entire agenda of either chamber by voting out their representative/senator. Those who live in other districts simply lack this power and can influence only a single vote in the chamber. State senators and representatives serve 2 year terms and thus are regularly held accountable to their constituents, with the exception of those that run unopposed, as discussed earlier in this piece. There is currently no mechanism for voters to to recall any state legislator serving in the General Assembly.

At the executive level, the people’s influence appears to wane further. RI Governor Dan McKee has largely been unaccountable to his constituents during his tenure, having made a number of questionable decisions that have been lambasted by an overwhelming majority of Rhode Islanders. McKee’s failure to hold those responsible for the George Washington Bridge’s abrupt closing and missed inspections is just the latest in a series of missteps at odds with his constituents. Other incidents include the unexpected closure of several Providence schools beloved by the community and students, an ongoing effort to move the Kennedy Bus Hub to appease local developers and gentrify the area, and the withholding of a controversial email that alleged McKee officials made highly inappropriate comments during a visit with developer Scout Ltd. As a result of these and other lapses in judgment, Mckee’s approval rating at the time of this writing stands at a paltry 29%. The governor serves a maximum of two 4-year terms and Dan McKee’s final day in office will be January, 2027. While there is a mechanism to recall a sitting governor in RI, the process requires the signatures of 15% of ballots cast in their last election. Among states that allow the recall of public officials, Rhode Island’s signature requirement is among the lowest, but at a count of 53,650 based on 2022 election figures, would still be a difficult obstacle.

In Congress, a groundbreaking study covering a 20-year span showed that representation of constituent views is virtually non-existent, unless you are among the rich. This 2015 study showed that ordinary voters have no influence at all when it comes to policy in Congress unless rich elites also want that same policy. This is primarily the result of two factors: 1) As the population has grown, the number of members of Congress has stayed exactly the same, resulting in too few representatives per person and outsized influence among those with money and connections. 2) The Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court essentially legalized bribery by allowing wealthy donors to contribute unlimited sums of money to members of Congress, provided they do it via a 3rd party political action committee. In turn, these members of Congress are obligated to serve their interests in order to keep the money flowing. Recent studies show this is exactly the mechanism at play.

We can confirm based on recent events that members of Congress are largely unresponsive to their constituents even when the sentiment is overwhelming. This practice even extends to their own staff, who became so enraged that they staged a walkout last November. Americans have tried resorting to alternative means of communication to get through, to no avail. The situation was exacerbated when Congress made the inexplicable decision this month to host Israel Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The Prime Minister has been credibly charged with war crimes including forced starvation of the Palestinian people by the International Criminal Court. An arrest warrant for Netanyahu is imminent at the time of this writing. This, on top of Americans mere 42% support for the Israeli genocide in Gaza – a number that has been heavily influenced by an Israel-biased US mainstream media and social networks, demonstrates further that Congress is largely unresponsive to the majority of its constituents.

Conclusions:

• State legislators ultimately serve the Speaker and Senate President as their primary constituent.
• Voters who live in the districts of the House Speaker and Senate President have significantly more power than voters in other districts.
• The governor is largely unaccountable to constituents when they no longer must run for re-election.
• Ordinary voters have virtually no influence at all with their member of Congress.
• Bribery was essentially legalized via the Citizens United decision and has shown to be a significant factor in both legislation passed and access to one’s Congressperson.

Do All Branches of Government Share Equal Power?

The final area we must assess is the sharing of power among the executive (President), legislative (Congress), and judicial (Supreme Court) branches of government. The President’s main source of lawmaking power comes from executive orders. These are written directives issued by the president to direct the executive branch of the government and state agencies. Executive orders are usually based on existing statutory powers or powers granted to the president in the Constitution, and they must be consistent with those authorities. This authority is checked by the courts with the Supreme Court being the final check on this power.

Congress’s lawmaking power comes from the passing of legislation. In the House of Representatives, majority rules, even if the party in power only has a one representative advantage. As a result, far more bills make it out of the house that are favorable to the party in control. However, things are different in the Senate. Several rules that govern how the chamber operates serve to restrict its ability to pass bills and in turn favors conservative ideology. The most prominent of these rules is the filibuster. Essentially, a filibuster is any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter. It’s a unique function of the Senate, and is often seen as a way to defeat a bill. This can be done in a few different ways, including unlimited debates, procedural motions, or any other delaying and obstructive actions. Except it doesn’t happen that way anymore. A 1975 Senate rule change created the “no-talk filibuster”. Rather than having to stand on the Senate floor and speak for a prolonged period of time to delay action, senators who wish to filibuster not only do not have to speak on the Senate floor, they do not even have to be present in the Senate at all. In fact, the “no-talk filibuster” is not even a real filibuster, just the threat of one. Basically, one side only needs to suggest that it will filibuster. Today, a filibuster by the opposing party is now considered the default for every bill. Essentially, this means that every bill needs 60 votes to pass rather than a simple majority. This rule gives a de facto permanent majority to conservatives in the Senate, provided the opposition does not have 60 senators, a rare situation. Because the status quo is conservative in nature (against change) by default, a Senate that contains 59 Democratic senators and 41 Republican senators is still controlled, at least with regards to passing legislation, by Republicans. There are other benefits to having more senators than the other party – the ability to take up judicial nominations and other procedural actions, but the fact is that voters could give Democrats a resounding 18 senator lead in the chamber and the party still would not be able to pass a single bill without Republican buy-in. As a result, today nearly all of the bills that are passed by the Senate can be lumped into one of these bipartisan categories: 1) Enhances law enforcement or military, 2) Updates [usually inconsequential] procedures in government, 3) Applies to a very small subset of persons for a specific cause. Notably absent are any bills that make progress or enhance the lives of a broad spectrum of the population. Bills of this nature simply do not pass anymore in the Senate, short of an emergency such as COVID-19. Laws that are passed by Congress are still subject to constitutional review by the courts, and ultimately by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is considered by many to be the most controversial branch of government due to the nature in which its members are confirmed, the lack of term limits for its justices, and its general lack of accountability. For instance, SCOTUS is the only federal entity with no code of ethics. Justices are free to act as they please including but not limited to 1) accepting bribes in the form of luxury vacations, material gifts, and even cash payments, 2) hearing and ruling on cases in which they have a direct interest (i.e. friendly with the party(s) involved, hold stock in the company(s) involved, etc.). In fact, this past session, SCOTUS literally ruled to limit the power of anti-bribery laws, essentially legalizing their own corruption.

Supreme Court justices are nominated by the sitting president whenever a vacancy occurs on the bench. Typically, the president presents their nominee and the Senate takes up a hearing to confirm the justice. At least this is how it is supposed to happen. However, in 2016, then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took the unprecedented step of refusing to take up President Barack Obama’s SCOTUS nominee for reasons completely unrelated to the nominee himself. While the Senate refusing to consider a nominee to the high court was not unprecedented, it had never been done for purely partisan reasons. In this case, McConnell was banking on a Republican president taking power, which would result in a far more conservative nominee. This is exactly what happened, as Donald Trump won the presidency, at which time McConnell immediately took up his nominee, Neil Gorsuch. Of note, had Trump not won the presidency, notable Republicans had vowed to never hold a hearing for a Democrat’s nominee again, a severe violation of democratic norms.

The lack of term limits for Supreme Court justices poses a host of issues as it pertains to democracy. Reviewing the current makeup of the court, (4) were nominated by a president that won the popular vote, (3) were nominated by a President that lost the popular vote, and (2) were nominated by a president that lost the popular vote in his first term but won it in the election prior to nominating his justices. This paints a picture of a Supreme Court that was not entirely chosen by those representing a majority of the voting public. This becomes problematic because justices serve for life, without any limit on their term. Of further concern is that as the political makeup of the country shifts, the makeup of the Supreme Court remains largely the same. This is most obviously reflected in the opinions of Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas, the longest sitting justice on the court who was nominated back in 1991, espouses views on issues such as women’s rights, race, and the role of government that are far outdated and have not enjoyed favor in the mainstream in decades.

The most concerning aspect of the Supreme Court and the reason why it is the most powerful entity in the federal government by a considerable margin is because it has the unwritten power to modify the US Constitution. While the Court cannot change the words of the constitution directly, the majority opinion in any case can “interpret” the constitution to mean nearly anything they want it to mean, bending it to their will. For example, the 1st Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble…..” Although the amendment is written clearly in plain language and is not ambiguous, SCOTUS has thus rewritten the 1st Amendment via decisions that have drastically curtailed it’s original power and the founder’s intentions. Here is just a tiny sampling of the many decisions SCOTUS has handed down in direct violation of the 1st Amendment:

Schenck v. United States (1919) – During wartime, defendants mailed to new recruits and enlisted men leaflets that compared military conscription to involuntary servitude and urged them to assert constitutional rights. SCOTUS affirmed their convictions even though their actions were protected by the plain language of 1A. This would be followed by many similar decisions including Debs v. United States in which Eugene Debs was convicted for making speeches opposing World War 1. On a positive note, this series of bad SCOTUS decisions inspired the formation of the ACLU in 1920.

Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) – The Supreme Court rules that children may be expelled for refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, claiming that it was a matter of national security, in clear violation of the students’ right to free speech.

Dennis v. United States (1951) – The Supreme Court upholds the convictions of twelve Communist Party members convicted under the Smith Act of 1940. The Court finds that the Smith Act, which banned speech that advocates the violent overthrow of the federal government, does not violate the First Amendment. In other words, SCOTUS found that the actions that led to the formation of the United States itself are illegal.

Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) – SCOTUS rules that the First Amendment does not exempt reporters from revealing their sources to the government. This decision would end up causing big-time local ramifications as it was used to sentence WJAR reporter Jim Taricani to 6 months of home confinement in 2004 after Taricani refused to reveal the identity of the person who gave him a videotape made in the course of an FBI undercover investigation.

Rust v. Sullivan (1991) – The Court upholds a federal program that prevents those receiving federal funding for reproductive health services from discussing abortion as a method of family planning.

Virginia v. Black (2003) – SCOTUS upholds a state law banning cross-burning. The Court reasons that cross-burnings are so intimidating that they constitute true threats.

Morse v. Frederick (2007) – The Supreme Court rules that principal Deborah Morse did not violate the First Amendment rights of high school student Joseph Frederick when she punished him for displaying a “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner on a public street directly across from his school while the Winter Olympic Torch Relay passed through Juneau, Alaska.

Citizens United v. FEC (2010) – In one of the more bizarre and contradictory decisions to come out of the court, SCOTUS decides that election spending by corporations is “speech” and any limitation violates First Amendment political free-speech rights. But despite this ruling, the Court indicates that direct contributions to candidates by corporations are still prohibited, even though this seemingly contradicts their reasoning for allowing unlimited spending in the first place.

Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014) – The Court rules that a New York town’s practice of having prayer before town meetings did not violate the establishment clause, even though 1A’s language is quite clear on banning the practice.

This small sampling covers only a handful of cases specific to the First Amendment. Missing are numerous judicial decisions that not only didn’t stand the test of time but, in retrospect, should never have been rendered in the first place including Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Buck v. Bell, Korematsu, and Bush v. Gore. What should be understood from these examples is that the US Supreme Court is prone to making bad decisions that can have devastating consequences on the American public. While nobody is perfect and we cannot possibly expect SCOTUS to render the best possible decision every time, the court should be accountable and the people should have the ability to redress poor outcomes. Unfortunately, they do not. Justices serve for life and historically the makeup of the court in any given decade is often random, devoid of public sentiment and the results of elections. The people of the United States must instead rely on deaths of justices at the same time a president who shares their ideology is in office for any hope that the political bend of the court may change. While justices do retire on occasion, these retirements are often timed so that a president of the same ideology nominates their replacement, which usually does not change the leanings of the court. It should be noted that SCOTUS justices can be impeached, however as the recent Clarence Thomas revelations have shown, the bar for impeachment is so high as to be virtually non-existent.

Conclusions:

• Filibuster rules have left the US Senate unable to pass meaningful legislation and has led to a de facto permanent conservative majority, which differs substantially from recent electoral results.
• While the three branches of government are intended to share power, in practice federal power is overwhelmingly tilted towards the Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court has the power to invalidate the actions of the President and Congress, but no branch has the power to invalidate the decisions of the Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court has unchecked power to alter, add to, and invalidate parts of the Constitution via its opinions.
• The Supreme Court has no ethics code and justices violate basic ethics by routinely accepting gifts from those with business before the court, and failing to recuse from cases in which they have a vested interest.
• The Supreme Court is not immune from making regrettable decisions not grounded in Constitutional law, but typically the only method of reversing such decisions is if SCOTUS later rules differently on a similar case.
• The Supreme Court’s unlimited term length and manner of nominations for its justices results in the court often not representing the ideology and will of the electorate.

Is the United States a Functional Democracy?

Based on the comprehensive evidence we have reviewed and presented, it is clear that the United States does not meet the criteria for a properly functioning democracy. Rather, the system more closely resembles an oligarchy – a form of government where power is concentrated in the hands of a small elite group.

Several key factors support this conclusion:

• Lack of competitive elections: At both state and national levels, a large percentage of races are uncontested or non-competitive. Gerrymandering and restrictive ballot access laws further limit voter choice.
• Disproportionate representation: The Electoral College system and Senate structure give disproportionate power to less populated states. Congressional districts are often drawn to favor incumbents rather than reflect constituent interests.
• Unresponsive governance: Studies show ordinary voters have little to no influence on policy compared to wealthy elites. Members of Congress routinely ignore overwhelming public sentiment on key issues.
• Concentration of power: The Supreme Court wields unchecked authority to effectively rewrite the Constitution through its rulings, with no real accountability to voters.
• Legalized corruption: The Citizens United decision opened the floodgates to unlimited dark money in politics, giving wealthy donors and corporations outsized influence.
• Lack of meaningful choice: The two-party system, first-past-the-post voting, and efforts to suppress third parties severely limit voters’ options.
• Erosion of checks and balances: Partisan manipulation of processes like Supreme Court nominations have upset the intended balance of power between branches.

This system of oligarchy allows a small group of wealthy elites and corporate interests to wield vastly disproportionate political power compared to ordinary citizens. Their interests are consistently prioritized in policy and legislation. Americans have been misled into believing they live in a vibrant democracy, when in reality their voices and votes carry little weight in shaping the direction of their government. This deception maintains a facade of democratic legitimacy while an oligarchic system operates behind the scenes.

Recent polls backup these conclusions. A Gallup poll taken earlier this year shows that just 28% of Americans are satisfied with the way democracy works in the United States. A Pew Research poll conducted this April revealed that most developed countries believe that democracy in the United States today is not a good example for other countries to follow. In particular, 83% of Canadians, 86% of Brittons, 89% of Germans, 93% of Australians, and 78% of Japanese believe the US is no longer a good example of democracy. The World Democracy Matrix run by the German Research Foundation ranks the US 36th in its list of most democratic nations, with the United States failing to achieve the designation of “Working Democracy”. Lastly, the Economist Democracy Index ranks the US 29th with a score of 7.85 out of 10 (down from a high of 8.22 in 2006) with a designation of “Flawed Democracy”.

The evidence presented here paints a picture of a system designed to concentrate power among elites while providing just enough of a democratic veneer to maintain public acceptance. Until major structural reforms are enacted to address these fundamental flaws, the United States will continue to function as an oligarchy masquerading as a democracy.