The short answer is that we need "more democracy", but not in the way in which "more democracy" is traditionally understood.
We emphatically do NOT need to give people more things to vote
on. In fact we should probably significantly reduce the number of things people vote on. Direct democracy and the direct election of all sorts of public offices such a judges and cabinet officials in the United States has been an abject failure. It's made government worse on every level, and hasn't empowered citizens in any meaningful way - it's just made it easier for moneyed interests to sway policies to their advantage. Admittedly sometimes it's led to good outcomes (like minimum wage hikes and redistricting commissions) but on the whole it's clearly a failed experiment.
We certainly should make voting more accessible (and even mandatory, ideally, if that could be implemented without negative side-effects). The biggest scandal of American democracy is how few people vote. There are many complex reasons for that, but at least some of the most obvious barriers should obviously be lifted. But beyond how many people vote, there are more fundamental questions we should start asking about
how they vote, and how to make the connection between votes and outcomes more tangible to voters. The problem at the core of American democracy is that there's no meaningful connection between the kind of policies voters want and the kind of representation they get. It gets to an almost comical degree where the most #populist
politicians are those who support the policies most antithetical to the average voter's values and interests. Solving this fundamental problem is an incredibly thorny issue, and I don't have one clear answer. It probably requires changing both the ways in which people vote (for example moving toward a PR system that more accurately reflects the pluralism of US society), as well as changing the broader environment (notably, the informational environment) in which voters make their choices.
Poll
