Dahl's democratic standards and American voter suppression in 2013

Robert Dahl and Democracy's Demise

There is no question that Robert Alan Dahl is considered by scholars as among the most celebrated and referenced social scientists of the 20th century. And a careful review of his writing and thinking does, however, lead an alert reader to raise thoughtful questions as to whether or not the United States can truly be considered a democracy today. This paper utilizes Dahl's theories and narratives on what makes up the "ideal democracy" as a scholarly juxtaposition vis-a-vis the undemocratic realities of the American political landscape in 2013. Those undemocratic realities include widespread voter suppression and voter intimidation. This paper documents many instances of one party in particular -- the Republican Party -- successfully enacting policies and strategies designed to deliberately suppress votes that might go against Republican candidates.

Dahl's Ideal Democracy

In a 1995 essay ("Justifying Democracy") Dahl asserted that "No democratic country -- and certainly no nondemocratic country -- has created a set of social, economic, and political arrangements that achieve a satisfactory standard of liberty, justice, democracy, security and decency" (Dahl, 1995, 47). He added on page 48 that a modern "…privately-own market economy…will generate inequalities: in incomes, wealth, status, skills, information, and access to communications, and this in power, influence, and authority."

In his book, On Democracy, Dahl offers five standards which a democratic nation can use as a way to measure whether "…all the members are equally entitled to participate" in decisions that affect policy. A good question to ask when critiquing those five standards is -- how do they stack up when observing the American democratic society in 2013? The five Dahl standards include: a) "effective participation" (this paper will point out that effective participation is not universally evident among the electorate in America); b) "voting equality" (there is strong evidence that some states have suppressed voters' rights to participate); c) "enlightened understanding" (Dahl explains that voters must have "equal and effective opportunities for learning about relevant alternative policies and their likely consequences" but in fact the media during national elections is flooded with attack ads and distortions funded by shadowy corporate sources); d) "control of the agenda" (the powers that be in Washington tend to have full control over the national agenda); and e) "inclusion of adults" (this point assumes that all adult citizens will be included in the democratic process which is not the case in the U.S.) (Dahl, 2000, 37-38).

Having outlined those particulars, Dahl asserts that "…no state" has ever "…fully measured up to the criteria of a democratic process"; and "None is likely to," he adds (38). He admits his ideas may be viewed as "utopian" or "pie-in-the-sky," but as an idealist he believes that are "…as useful as ideal standards can ever be" (38). Moreover, Dahl offers the standards as a way to "measure the performance" of actual democracies that claim they are democratic.

Suppressing the Vote in Florida in 2000

Hanes Walton writes in The Black Scholar that in Gadsden County, Florida -- the "…only Black-Belt county left…" in Florida -- is 60% African-American. And on November 7, 2000, Election Day, voting machines "…failed to count the ballots of 2,085 of its citizens" in that county, which is germane because George W. Bush won Florida by less than 600 ballots (Walton, p. 21). Moreover, the punch-card voting machines in Jefferson County, Florida, "failed to count 571 ballots of its citizens" (Walton, p. 21).

In addition, when the U.S. Civil Rights Commission conducted hearings on the Florida election fiasco, witnesses testified that "…Florida state politicos and highway patrolmen set up road blocks in African-American neighborhoods on election day" (Walton, 23). The roadblocks allowed law enforcement to "…conduct license checks, car checks," and basically were intended to intimidate African-American voters (Walton, 23). Other voices in those hearings stated that a Caucasian public relations firm had been hired by Republican officials in Florida to research voter fraud; that firm "…erroneously" identified "many African-Americans as felons" and hence those unfortunate folks were denied their Constitutional right to vote Walton, 23).

Is it Okay to Deliberately Disenfranchise Voters in the U.S.

Based on the literature available, the answer is apparently yes; states can get away with deliberately disenfranchising voters, which goes against what Dahl called the "ideal democracy." Granted, even Dahl admitted that no state or nation would ever be able to create a totally fair and just society. In his essay "Justifying Democracy" he acknowledged that "…the values and goals I advocate and hope will prevail will always be strongly contested" (Dahl, 47). He goes on to say that he is not at all confident that his values "…will necessarily predominate," but they will not become reality "…if those who believe in these goals fail to support them as best they can" (47).

Certainly his goal for a fair and just America does not include support for the draconian policies put forward by those who seek to limit the voters purely out of a corrupt passion for power. That having been said, every sincere leader of every democratic state should have as a top priority the desire to make democracy work for all citizens. Every leader should also root out tactics that are clearly deceptive, illegal, and undemocratic.

Among the tactics that go against democracy and against what Dahl advocated are those employed in Florida during the presidential election of 2012. To wit, a new study shows that "…tens of thousands of people were actually discouraged from voting" due to the long lines at polling places (Terkel, 2012). Why were there long lines that kept people standing in line for up to nine hours? The answer is very clear. The Republican-controlled legislature cut back the number of days that had been available for voters who wished to vote early. In 2008, Florida had established 14 days for early voting, but in 2012, Republicans were apparently desperately trying to get Mitt Romney elected and they knew that the majority of people who vote early tend to support Democrat candidates. Hence, they reduced the early voting opportunities to 8 days.

Moreover, they shortened the number of hours available during those 8 days, and according to Theodore Allen, associate professor industrial engineering at Ohio State University, who conducted the research, "…as many as 49,000 individuals in Central Florida did not vote because of the problems at the polls" (Terkel, p. 1). Black and Latino voters were "…disproportionately disenfranchised," Terkel explains, using Allen's data.

In conclusion, it is indefensible to have some states in the U.S. deliberately suppressing people from carrying out their Constitutional right to vote. It is also unconscionable that politicians can use tactics that are frankly undemocratic and borderline evil and get away with it. Dahl's idealistic view of democracy notwithstanding, American politics will never be perfect, but leaders should endeavor to enfranchise citizens, not the other way around.

Office of Governor Rick Scott / State of Florida

The Capitol / 400 S. Monroe Street

Tallahassee FL. 32399-0001

Dear Governor Scott:

Thank you for your prompt attention to my letter. I am very concerned about the issue of voter suppression in your state. I saw the long lines of people waiting to vote, patiently waiting up to nine hours just to register their vote because your policies included a cutback in the hours that voting polls were open.

The Orlando Sentinel recently published findings that show as many as 49,000 Floridians did not vote due to impossibly log-jammed situations at the polls. The study was done by Theodore Allen, professor of industrial engineering from Ohio State University, who was a neutral empirical researcher with no ax to grind vis-a-vis your state's policies and politics.

May I ask why your administration and members of your party in the Florida Legislature decided to cut back early voting from 14 to 8 days for the 2012 election? If I remember correctly there were lengthy lines at Florida polling places in the 2008 election -- so why would a governor authorize even fewer days of early voting for the 2012 presidential election?

Was this cutback politically motivated? Did you authorize and advocate for a shorter early voting opportunity because you knew that you would be suppressing the votes of likely Democrats? Were you blatantly trying to prevent African-American and Latino voters from selecting Barack Obama rather than your Republican candidate, Mitt Romney?