The
definition of “democracy” has evolved substantially over the millennia, from
the classical Athenian description of democracy as a political system in which
all members of society have an equal share of power, to what Schumpeter calls
the 18th century philosophy of democracy, which is “that
institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions which realizes
the common good by making the people itself decide issues through the election
of individuals who are to assemble in order to carry out its will (Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, p.
250),” to Schumpeter’s theory that the democratic method is a competitive
struggle between individuals for the people’s vote to arrive at a political
decision. In the following, using statistical evidence from Bartels (Unequal Democracy) and the democratic
theories of Schumpeter (Capitalism,
Socialism, and Democracy) and Schattschneider (The Semisovereign People), I will redefine this Schumpetarian
theory of democracy further, namely, adding a qualification to “the people’s
vote”: the “people” in a modern democracy is not an all-encompassing group, but
rather a segment of the electorate (middle- and upper-income voters) that is
appeased by elected officials, thus alienating the lower-incomes of society.
Politicians are able to alienate the lower-income voters because of what
Bartels’ (p. 186) calls the “political ignorance of ordinary citizens.”
In
Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy,
Schumpeter belabors his argument that even if the preferences of individual
citizens were definite, the political decisions produced would not represent
the will of the people. When the
individual wills of the people are divided, it is inconceivable that a
compromise that is supported by the people will be reached. Riker (1980)
supports this point with a formal model of majority rule that ends in
disequilibrium. Thus, it can be assumed from these two observations that the
formation of public policy in a modern democracy would require policy makers to
strategically narrow the constituency they intend to represent. Bartels
presents evidence that Congressional representatives are only responsive to middle- and high-income segments of the
population, ostensibly ignoring the lower-income percentage of the electorate.
According to Schattschneider (p. 35), “The flaw in the pluralist heaven is that
the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class accent.” While these
political scientists may agree on the class-bias of policy formation, how do we
explain the alienation of the lower income segment of the population? Do they
not vote? Do they not have access to politicians? Are they uninformed, or even
misinformed? Bartels answers each of these questions in part:
a. Lower
income citizens do vote, just not with as high a percentage as the rest of the
electorate. According to V.O. Key Jr. (cited in Bartels, p. 275), “politicians
and officials are under no compulsion to pay much heed to classes and groups of
citizens that do not vote.” However, as Bartels argues, they do vote, but are
“getting no representation” (p. 275).
b. Lower
income citizens do have access to politicians, but not as heavily as higher
income citizens. Bartels believes this is a part of the problem, but is by no
means telling the entire story of why lower income citizens are not
represented.
c. Finally,
Bartels argues that political information/disinformation does not explain the
lack of responsiveness to the lower income electorate. However, he does
importantly argue that the political values of the lower income segment of the
electorate often do not match up with their policy preferences. For instance,
while a lower income voter may believe they pay too much in taxes and the rich
do not pay enough and that inequality is spreading in the U.S. and it is not a
good outcome, many of these voters continued to support the Bush tax cuts of
2001 and 2003 that were heavily biased in support of higher income voters, and
the repeal of the estate tax, which only affected the very highest incomes.
Bartels calls this the “political ignorance of ordinary citizens” (p. 186) and
the “unenlightened considerations of self-interest” (p. 181).
So, do you think
that lower income voters are represented in our government (I can feel the
conservative comments about redistribution coming), and moreover, do you
believe they should be?
