Essay 26: Government By Democracy In America: Influence that American Democracy Exerts on Electoral Laws

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 192 (start at heading Influence that American Democracy Exerts on Electoral Laws) – 195.

In a span of a few pages in the first volume of Democracy in America, Alexis De Tocqueville discusses the implications of the frequency of American elections and the significance of the un-exalted position of civil servants in the United States. In each case, De Tocqueville’s arguments hinge on the importance of time horizons in understanding the behavior of public officials in the nation.

De Tocqueville visited the United States in 1831, along with his friend and collaborator, Gustave de Beaumont, officially to do research on penal conditions in the United States. This did result in a report that was presented to the French government, but of more significance was De Tocqueville’s book, Democracy in America. This was an analysis of more than government and politics, but also social conditions and a civic society that De Tocqueville believed gave rise to a form of governance that was unknown in Europe. De Tocqueville based his conclusions on observations carried out over several months. De Tocqueville visited seventeen of the twenty-four states then making up the union. He also briefly traveled through a bit of Canada. He only spent a few weeks in Washington, DC, so the bulk of what he learned about the country came from witnessing happenings outside the capitol. His observations also took place in a year in which no presidential or congressional elections were held. Much of what he learned came from witnessing politics and society at the local level.

Influence Which American Democracy Has Exercises On Electoral Laws

In remarking on the relative frequency of American elections, De Tocqueville claimed that “When election comes only at long intervals, the state runs a risk of being overturned in each election.” The parties involved perceive that there is much at stake in the election, and the winning side will “seize for themselves a fortune that comes so rarely within their reach.” If elections occur more frequently, the defeated candidates are more “patient.” In short, their time horizons adapt to the prospect of a change in their prospects in a soon to be held election. Frequent elections cause a good bit of “unrest for the state,” largely by the enactment of policies that are unstable since they are often reversed. Yet De Tocqueville believes that most Americans seem to have chosen the dangers of some instability over the threat of calamitous and tumultuous changes when elections are few and far between. Some of the founders, such as Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, decried this instability in laws, but their concerns were not persuasive enough to sway most state lawmakers, who crafted the election laws. De Tocqueville’s conclusions were probably based on his observations of state and local elections, and their aftermath. There were no federal elections at the time of his travels to America.

Modern social science research has explored the implications of election frequency. Much of that research examines effects on voter turnout, rather than the behavior of candidates and parties. A phenomenon sometimes called “voter fatigue” or “ballot fatigue” has been found when elections occur frequently or if the ballots are too long. Under these circumstances, voter turnout declines as the number of elections increases over a fixed period of time. Because in America voters have opportunities to vote in federal, state, and local elections, often held on different days of the calendar, elections of some sort were and are held quite frequently. Party primary elections also add to the number of times that voters go to the polls, but primaries did not exist in De Tocqueville’s day. Some research does address the effect of the electoral cycle on the behavior of elected officials. In cases on elected officials with longer terms, such as U.S. senators, voting behavior in their chamber is relatively independent of their constituencies’ preferences but becomes more representative of constituency desires later in their terms as the next election approaches.

“Public Officials Under the Empire of American Democracy”

De Tocqueville also had much to say about the impact that the “empire” of American democracy had on public officials, particularly civil servants. One of the notable aspects of the way that public officials behave appears to be related to that they “remain intermingled with the crowd of citizens: they have neither palaces, nor guards, nor ceremonial uniforms” generally working without uniforms, badges, or distinctive ornaments of office that set them apart from the general population. In a democracy, De Tocqueville argued, “government is not a good; it is a necessary evil.” Public officials are “accorded a certain power” but beyond that any “external appearance of power” would “needlessly offend the public’s sight.”

This disdain for external and pretentious ornaments of office is also related to the issue of time horizons. Privileges (and power) of office “are passing; they depend on the place and not the man.” The administrative positions in office are temporary. They are paid positions, otherwise, the government would be staffed by wealthy amateurs who can afford to serve without official remuneration. This would create a “class of wealthy and independent officials, to form the core of an aristocracy.” In democratic states “all citizens can obtain posts” but “all are not tempted to solicit them.” In a sense, both formally elected and administrative positions are filled by the “principle of election.” The common voters select the elected officials, and the elected officials “elect” those holding administrative positions. In each instance, the appointments are temporary. They are not long-term, and they cannot be handed down from father to son. For that reason, “there is no public career, properly speaking” and officials have “no assurance in being kept in them [office].” Without the prospect of a long-term career, the pool of people who are both willing and able to work in government is restricted.

It is important to remember that De Tocqueville’s observations took place in a time in which both political and bureaucratic terms in office were much different than they are now. In those days, political careers were more time-limited and incumbent office holders had less advantage in elections than they do now. Furthermore, in De Tocqueville’s day there was no civil service system at any level of government. With the Pendleton Act in 1883, the federal government adopted a civil service system, which provided some job protection for government employees, and state and local governments adopted civil service in some cases before but often after the Pendleton Act. Whether this careerism that can be found in America over the last century or so has made the country less “democratic” is an issue that must be considered at another time.

James C. Clinger is an emeritus professor in the Department of Political Science and Sociology at Murray State. For many years, he was the director of the Master of Public Administration Program at Murray State. He now serves as an on-line adjunct instructor for any university willing to hire him and as a substitute teacher for the Henry County (Tennessee) School System.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.
Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

PRINT ARTICLE