Democracy in Theory and Practice

Rationale

Democracy is a vital word in the function and form of American politics. We are fed a steady diet of the word and its derivatives on a daily basis. Election coverage features news correspondents and political candidates using the word freely. Federally elected officials employ the word as a measuring stick. How many times have we heard or read about something being maligned as undemocratic or as violating democratic principles? The word also fuels the engine of foreign policy. Economic aid flows from the United States to developing countries, when these developing countries agree to work on building a more democratic society. Military interventions seek to create opportunities for more stable democracies.

I presume others, as I do, often find themselves nodding in agreement with the free association of the term 'democracy' employed so readily by public officials. But aside from being victimized by the slick political ads that promote an image of democracy with a candidate, the windswept flag, or me casting a vote in the upcoming election, I really find the subject of democracy in America difficult to concisely define. While I think I grasp the fundamental idea that my voice or vote counts, I am not sure exactly how it counts when considering it in light of the electoral process. Instead more and more questions come to mind. How does my voice or vote fit into political parties, primaries, the Electoral College, local elections, state elections, and special referendums? Does it mean that my voice or vote should matter for each issue that arises? Or does it mean that my elected representative should act on his or her own judgment? Should everyone have the right to vote? What is the correct age for granting voting rights? Has the power of expanded suffrage been negated by strong federal powers? Lastly, if my voice is in the minority why should I consent to the majority's will? If as an adult, I grapple with these questions, I can only imagine the confusion that my students face as they develop their own working definitions of democracy in America. If we are to maintain or even build a higher level of legitimacy for our democracy students need opportunities to examine how it works.

I propose that critically examining two crisis elections in American history in my 10 ^th grade United States History I class will allow my students and me to address some of the questions I posed above while we cover required historical material from the district curriculum. The elections of 1800 and 2000 were knife-edge elections that raise important issues about the form and function of democracy in America. From an historical perspective, one can gain much knowledge of the electoral process in studying these elections. "Who can vote?" and "how they vote" in each election reveals a cultural portrait of democracy in America over the course of 200 years. Additionally, how these crisis elections were resolved also demonstrates procedural differences in the electoral process from then to now. Moreover, the Supreme Court's role in the resolution of the election of 2000 distinguishes the Supreme Court as a factor in national politics.

The Supreme Court hardly proved a factor in the Election of 1800 even though one of its great justices, John Marshall, was one of the 'midnight appointments' to the court following John Adams' election loss in 1800. ¹ The election of 1800 ultimately, though precariously, proved to be the first peaceful transfer of power from one political party to another. The event revealed a constitutional defect in the election process that was addressed by ratifying the 12 ^th Amendment. ² The election deadlock in the House of Representatives between Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson proved that having the electorate vote for two presidential candidates was problematic. Additionally, it proved that having both leading candidates of the opposition party only exasperated the situation for the lame-duck federalists. In this election, party loyalties and allegiance to sectional and state interests were serious enough to threaten the unity of the states.

In the 1840's Alex de Tocqueville wrote, "There is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one." ³ Certainly this turned out to be the case regarding the 2000 election. In 2000, the Supreme Court of the United States ultimately decided that the integrity of the election was at risk when it stopped any extensions for recounting ballots in Florida. Scrutiny of voting procedures, voting machines, recounting procedures and deadlines resulted in a national fervor about how elections are conducted around the country. The butterfly ballot became one casualty due to this outcry. In addition some critics have taken aim at the Electoral College as an undemocratic means of voting for the executive. ⁴

My hope is that by critically studying these elections, my students and I will deepen our understanding of the history of democracy and democracy today in the United States. Deeper understanding may lead to more meaningful participation in the democratic process. This may not lead to uniformity but in turn may create questions, criticism, and different points of view. However, this is not inconsistent with democratic ideals. Jefferson believed an educated populace is the key to a thriving democracy. Madison who initially criticized factions, ultimately came to believe that many factions representing many interests would create a healthier democracy. ⁵

Alternatively, I wish for students and me to distinguish between conditions that hold democracies together in the face of crisis, knife-edged elections and situations that leave democratic governments vulnerable to ruin when close elections excite cleavages to disregard rule of law. A comparative look at the effect of historical knife-edged elections in democracies around the world may reinforce our study.