Who holds sovereign power?
Measure American governance the way an engineer would: count what share of the electorate actually installs its winners. The answer is a fraction of a fraction, and it is shrinking.
Measuring America's governance.
| #28 | of 35 developed democracies in voter participation | OECD |
| Worse | than all European and Nordic countries, plus Israel and Tunisia | Intl. Democracy Index |
Downgraded · Flawed Democracy
A metric for election legitimacy: Electoral Mass.
Calculate the "Electoral Mass," the percentage of support a winner draws from the electorate itself. Ask of any race: what share of the Voter-Eligible Population (VEP) backs the winning candidate, and by what margin?
Note that even VEP far overstates participation. Only about 60% of adults age 18 and over register to vote, so VEP is roughly 0.60 times the voting-age population (VAP).
Electoral Mass
Vote share × turnout = the percentage of the eligible electorate that backs the winner. A mandate can be no larger than this number.
Nominees "win" with about 8%, by 2% margins.
The winner is chosen by 1 in 12 eligible voters, on a margin of 1 in 35.
- Virtually no electoral mass, and it runs still lower in caucuses
- Dominated by partisan "true believer" factions: ideological, single-issue
- Fewer moderate "normal people" with diverse views on the issues
Candidates "win" with about 25%, by 4% margins.
The winner is chosen by 1 in 4 eligible voters, on a margin of 1 in 25.
- Winners "lose" roughly 75% of the electorate
- A Hobson's choice: take one or the other
- Both candidates beholden to party issue positions and to plutocrats
The democracy death spiral.
Two-party mechanics run on negative feedback loops. Each turn of the cycle removes voters and hardens factions.
- Fewer voters produce more factional candidates, which produces fewer voters still
- More factional candidates run more polarizing campaigns
- Polarizing campaigns drive voters out and factional governance in
- Factional governance produces gridlock
- Gridlock produces government dysfunction and unmet national needs
Collapsed political mechanics.
The loop has no internal brake. Left alone, it ends where it is headed: a governing system that cannot govern.
The 2016 presidential election, by the numbers.
Turnout and mass
| 58% | turnout | Gallup 2016 |
| 27% | "Electoral Mass" for the winner: 46% of the vote on 58% turnout (0.46 × 0.58 = 0.27) | |
| 28% | of the winner's vote was cast "Against" the opponent; only 72% was "For" | |
| 19% | net "Base" support (0.72 × 0.27 = 0.19) | CBS exit poll |
The two most disfavored candidates in 70 years
Both carried double-digit net-negative favorability. Before 2016, only one major candidate had ever been net-negative: Goldwater in 1964.
| −25% | net unfavorability, Republican nominee; the Democratic nominee stood at −18% |
| 20% | of the vote was "Lesser Evil": 1 in 5 voters disfavored both candidates |
| +17% | the election swung on that "Least-Worst" split; the R winner beat the D loser among these voters 47% to 30% |
"Electoral Mass" in recent elections.
2017 Virginia, statewide, three offices
Only 48% turnout.
| 1.1% | primary win margin; the other two offices were won by 0.9% and 0.2% |
| 25.6% | winning "Electoral Mass"; the other offices: 24.8% and 25.1% |
| 4.2% | general-election winning margin; the others: 3.1% and 2.1% |
2018 Arizona 8th District special
Only 38% turnout.
| 4.8% | Democratic primary winning "Mass"; Republican primary: 5.6% |
| 20.1% | general-election winning "Mass," on a 2.0% margin |
2017 Alabama, U.S. Senate
Only 40% turnout.
| 3.3% | and 7.8% winning "Mass" in the primaries, on margins of 0.3% and 0.5% |
| 20% | general-election winning "Mass," on a margin of 0.007% |
Both major political parties are viewed unfavorably by more than half of Alabama voters.
— CBS exit poll
Minorities this small still rule. Who are they?
If winners hold office with the backing of a quarter of the electorate or less, the next question is who occupies those offices, and for how long.