As American democracy remains in crisis, reform proposals proliferate. I make two contributions to the debate over how to respond to the current crisis. First, I organize reform proposals into three main categories: moderation, realignment, and transformation. I then argue why transformation is necessary, given the deep structural problems of American democracy. Only reforms that fundamentally shake up the political coalitions and electoral incentives can break the escalating two-party doom loop of hyperpartisanship that is destroying the foundations of American democracy.
AbramowitzAlanMcCoyJennifer. 2019. United States: Racial resentment, negative partisanship, and polarization in Trump’s America. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science681:137–56. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716218811309.
2.
AbramowitzAlan I.WebsterSteven W.2018. Negative partisanship: Why Americans dislike parties but behave like rabid partisans. Political Psychology39 (February): 119–35.
3.
BaldassarriDeliaPageScott E.2021. The emergence and perils of polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118 (50). Available from https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2116863118.
4.
Bassan-NygateLotemWeissChagai M.2020. Party competition and cooperation shape affective polarization: Evidence from natural and survey experiments in Israel. Comparative Politics. Available from https://doi.org/10.33774/apsa-2020-v23rl.
5.
BaumgartnerFrank R.JonesBryan D.1993. Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6.
BlaisAndré. 2008. To keep or to change first past the post? The politics of electoral reform. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
BowlerShaunDonovanTodd. 2012. The limited effects of election reforms on efficacy and engagement. Australian Journal of Political Science47 (1): 55–70. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2011.643161.
9.
BowlerShaunDonovanToddListhaugOlaAndersonChristopher J.BlaisAndré. 2007. Losers’ consent: Elections and democratic legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.
BoxellLeviGentzkowMatthewShapiroJesse. 2020. Cross-country trends in affective polarization. NBER Working Paper 26669, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Available from https://doi.org/10.3386/w26669.
11.
CampbellAndrea Louise. 2007. Parties, electoral participation, and shifting voting blocs. In The transformation of American politics, eds. PiersonPaulSkocpolTheda. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12.
CancelaJoãoGeysBenny. 2016. Explaining voter turnout: A meta-analysis of national and subnational elections. Electoral Studies42:264–75.
ChongDennisDruckmanJames N.2007. Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review101 (4): 637–55.
15.
ColemanJohn J.MannaPaul F.2000. Congressional campaign spending and the quality of democracy. Journal of Politics62 (3): 757–89. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-3816.00032.
16.
DolezalMartinEnnser-JedenastikLaurenzMüllerWolfgang C.2016. Negative campaigning and the logic of retaliation in multiparty competition. International Journal of Press/Politics21 (2): 253–72.
DyckJoshua J.Pearson-MerkowitzShannaCoatesMichael. 2018. Primary distrust: Political distrust and support for the insurgent candidacies of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary. PS: Political Science & Politics51 (2): 351–57. Available from https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096517002505.
22.
EggersAndrew C.2015. Proportionality and turnout: Evidence from French municipalities. Comparative Political Studies48 (2): 135–67.
23.
Elmelund-PræstekærChristian. 2008. Negative campaigning in a multiparty system. Representation44 (1): 27–39.
24.
Elmelund-PræstekærChristian. 2010. Beyond American negativity: Toward a general understanding of the determinants of negative campaigning. European Political Science Review2 (1): 137–56. Available from https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773909990269.
25.
FernandoJulian W.BurdenNicholasFergusonAdamO’BrienLéan V.JudgeMadelineKashimaYoshihisa. 2018. Functions of Utopia: How utopian thinking motivates societal engagement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin44 (5): 779–92. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217748604.
26.
FishM. StevenBrooksRobin S.2004. Does diversity hurt democracy?Journal of Democracy15 (1): 154–66. Available from https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2004.0009.
27.
FlavinPatrickShufeldtGregory. 2016. Party competition and citizens’ political attitudes in the American States. Electoral Studies44 (December): 235–44. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2016.09.001.
28.
FranklinMark N.van der EijkCeesEvansDianaFotosMichaelde MinoWolfgang HirczyMarshMichaelWesselsBernard. 2004. Voter turnout and the dynamics of electoral competition in established democracies since 1945. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
29.
FrymerPaul. 2010. Uneasy alliances: Race and party competition in America. Rev. ed. Princeton, NJ: Woodstock: Princeton University Press.
30.
GanghofSteffen. 2015. Four visions of democracy: Powell’s elections as instruments of democracy and beyond. Political Studies Review13 (1): 69–79. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/1478-9302.12069.
31.
GarziaDiego. 2013. Changing parties, changing partisans: The personalization of partisan attachments in Western Europe. Political Psychology34 (1): 67–89. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00918.x.
32.
GeysBenny. 2006. Explaining voter turnout: A review of aggregate-level research. Electoral Studies25 (4): 637–63.
33.
GidronNoamAdamsJamesHorneWill. 2020. American affective polarization in comparative perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
34.
GimpelJames G.LayJ. CelesteSchuknechtJason E.2003. Cultivating democracy: Civic environments and political socialization in America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
35.
GrahamMatthew H.SvolikMilan W.2020. Democracy in America? Partisanship, polarization, and the robustness of support for democracy in the United States. American Political Science Review114 (2): 392–409. Available from https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000052.
36.
GrofmanBernard. 2004. Downs and two-party convergence. Annual Review of Political Science7 (1): 25–46.
37.
GrofmanBernardStockwellRobert. 2003. Institutional design in plural societies: Mitigating ethnic conflict and fostering stable democracy. In Economic welfare, international business and global institutional change, eds. MudambiRamNavarraPietroSobbrioGiuseppe, 2915. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
38.
GrumbachJacob M.2022. Laboratories against democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39.
HackerJacob S.PiersonPaul. 2014. After the “master theory”: Downs, Schattschneider, and the rebirth of policy-focused analysis. Perspectives on Politics12 (3): 643–62.
40.
HackerJacob S.PiersonPaul. 2020. Let them eat tweets: How the right rules in an age of extreme inequality. New York, NY: Liveright Publishing.
41.
HannanMichael T.CarrollGlenn R.1981. Dynamics of formal political structure: An event-history analysis. American Sociological Review46 (1): 19–35. Available from https://doi.org/10.2307/2095024.
42.
HartstoneMargaretAugoustinosMartha. 1995. The minimal group paradigm: Categorization into two versus three groups. European Journal of Social Psychology25 (2): 179–93. Available from https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420250205.
43.
HibbingJohn R.Theiss-MorseElizabeth. 2May2016. A surprising number of Americans dislike how messy democracy is. They like Trump. Washington Post. Available from https://www.washingtonpost.com.
44.
HuberJohn D.2012. Measuring ethnic voting: Do proportional electoral laws politicize ethnicity?American Journal of Political Science56 (4): 986–1001.
45.
HuntingtonSamuel P.1983. American politics: The promise of disharmony. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
46.
IversenTorbenSoskiceDavid. 2006. Electoral institutions and the politics of coalitions: Why some democracies redistribute more than others. American Political Science Review100 (2): 165–81.
47.
JeffersonHakeem. 6October2020. How the two-party system obscures the complexity of Black Americans’ politics. FiveThirtyEight. Available from https://fivethirtyeight.com.
JonesBryan D.BaumgartnerFrank R.2012. From there to here: Punctuated equilibrium to the general punctuation thesis to a theory of government information processing. Policy Studies Journal40 (1): 1–19. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/%28ISSN%291541-0072/issues.
50.
JonesPhilip Edward. 2013. The effect of political competition on democratic accountability (of US senators). Political Behavior35 (3): 481–515.
51.
JuskoKaren Long. 2017. Who speaks for the poor? Electoral geography, party entry, and representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52.
KahnKim FridkinKenneyPatrick J.1999. The spectacle of U.S. Senate campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
53.
KalmoeNathan P.MasonLilliana. 2021. Radical American partisanship. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
54.
KatzRichard S.2005. Why are there so many (or so few) electoral reforms? In The politics of electoral systems, eds. GallagherMichaelMitchellPaul. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
55.
KennyChristopher B.1992. Political participation and effects from the social environment. American Journal of Political Science36 (1): 259–67. Available from https://doi.org/10.2307/2111432.
56.
KinderDonald R.KalmoeNathan P.2017. Neither liberal nor conservative: Ideological innocence in the American public. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
57.
KlarSamaraKrupnikovYanna. 2016. Independent politics: How American disdain for parties leads to political inaction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
58.
KteilyNourBruneauEmile. 2017. Backlash: The politics and real-world consequences of minority group dehumanization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin43 (1): 87–104. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216675334.
59.
LaRajaRaymond J.SchaffnerBrian F.2015. Campaign finance and political polarization: When purists prevail. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
60.
LeighleyJan E.NaglerJonathan. 2013. Who votes now? Demographics, issues, inequality, and turnout in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
61.
LevitskyStevenZiblattDaniel. 2018. How democracies die. New York, NY: Crown.
62.
LijphartArend. 1994. Electoral systems and party systems: A study of twenty-seven democracies, 1945–1990. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
63.
LinzJuan J.1978. The breakdown of democratic regimes: Crisis, breakdown and reequilibration. An introduction. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
64.
LipsitzKeena. 2011. Competitive elections and the American voter. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
65.
LublinDavidBowlerShaun. 2018. Electoral systems and ethnic minority representation. In The Oxford handbook of electoral systems, eds. HerronErik S.PekkanenRobert J.ShugartMatthew S., 158–74. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
66.
LyonsJeffreyJaegerWilliam P.WolakJennifer. 2013. The roots of citizens’ knowledge of state politics. State Politics & Policy Quarterly13 (2): 183–202. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/1532440012464878.
67.
MartherusJames L.MartinezAndres G.PiffPaul K.TheodoridisAlexander G.2019. Party ANIMALS? Extreme partisan polarization and dehumanization. Political Behavior. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09559-4.
68.
MasonLilliana. 2018. Ideologues without issues: The polarizing consequences of ideological identities. Public Opinion Quarterly82 (S1): 280–301. Available from https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfy005.
69.
McCartyNolanPooleKeith T.RosenthalHoward. 2006. Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
70.
McCoyJenniferRahmanTahminaSomerMurat. 2018. Polarization and the global crisis of democracy: Common patterns, dynamics, and pernicious consequences for democratic polities. American Behavioral Scientist62 (1): 16–42. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218759576.
71.
McCoyJenniferSomerMurat. 2019. Toward a theory of pernicious polarization and how it harms democracies: Comparative evidence and possible remedies. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science681:234–71. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716218818782.
72.
MettlerSuzanneBrownTrevor. 2022. The growing rural-urban political divide and democratic vulnerability. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (this volume).
73.
MettlerSuzanneLiebermanRobert C.2020. Four threats: The recurring crises of American democracy. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
74.
MettlerSuzanneSossJoe. 2004. The consequences of public policy for democratic citizenship: Bridging policy studies and mass politics. Perspectives on Politics2 (1): 55–73.
75.
MooreBarrington. 1966. Social origins of dictatorship and democracy: Lord and peasant in the making of the modern world. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
76.
MullerEdward N.SeligsonMitchell A.1994. Civic culture and democracy: The question of causal relationships. American Political Science Review88 (3): 635–52. Available from https://doi.org/10.2307/2944800.
77.
OsmundsenMathiasBorAlexanderVahlstrupPeter BjerregaardBechmannAnjaPetersenMichael Bang. 2020. Partisan polarization is the primary psychological motivation behind political fake news sharing on Twitter. PsyArXiv. Available from https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/v45bk.
78.
PhilpotTasha S.2017. Conservative but not Republican: The paradox of party identification and ideology among African Americans. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Available from https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316687185.
79.
PildesRichard H.2014. Romanticizing democracy, political fragmentation, and the decline of American government. Yale Law Journal124 (3): 804–52.
80.
PowellG. Bingham. 2000. Elections as instruments of democracy: Majoritarian and proportional visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
81.
PutnamRobert D.GarrettShaylyn Romney. 2020. The upswing: How America came together a century ago and how we can do it again. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
82.
RabushkaAlvinShepsleKenneth A.FearonJames D.2008. Politics in plural societies: A theory of democratic instability. 1st ed. New York, NY: Longman.
83.
ReillyBenjamin. 2006. Political engineering and party politics in conflict-prone societies. Democratization13 (5): 811–27. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/13510340601010719.
84.
RoddenJonathan. 2015. Geography and gridlock in the United States. In Solutions to political polarization in America, ed. PersilyNathaniel. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
85.
RoddenJonathan A.2019. Why cities lose: The deep roots of the urban-rural political divide. New York, NY: Basic Books.
RoddenJonathanCoxGary W.2020. Demonization. Working Paper.
88.
RosenstoneSteven J.HansenJohn Mark. 2002. Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York, NY: Pearson.
89.
SaidemanStephen M.LanoueDavid J.CampenniMichaelStantonSamuel. 2002. Democratization, political institutions, and ethnic conflict: A pooled time-series analysis, 1985–1998. Comparative Political Studies35 (1): 103–29. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/001041400203500108.
90.
SchneiderGeraldWiesehomeierNina. 2008. Rules that matter: Political institutions and the diversity-conflict nexus. Journal of Peace Research45 (2): 183–203. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343307087176.
91.
SelbPeter. 2009. A deeper look at the proportionality—Turnout nexus. Comparative Political Studies42 (4): 527–48.
92.
SidesJohnTeslerMichaelVavreckLynn. 2018. Identity crisis: The 2016 presidential campaign and the battle for the meaning of America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
93.
SkowronekStephen. 1982. The politics presidents make: Leadership from John Adams to Bill Clinton. Rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
94.
SmithCandis Watts. 2014. Black mosaic: The politics of Black pan-ethnic diversity. New York, NY: NYU Press.
95.
SnyderJack L.2000. From voting to violence: Democratization and nationalist conflict. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
96.
SomerMuratMcCoyJennifer. 2019. Transformations through polarizations and global threats to democracy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science681:8–22. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716218818058.
97.
SossJoeJacobsLawrence R.2009. The place of inequality: Non-participation in the American polity. Political Science Quarterly124 (1): 95–125. Available from https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-165X.2009.tb00643.x.
98.
SpielmanDarren A.2000. Young children, minimal groups, and dichotomous categorization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin26 (11): 1433–41. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200263010.
99.
SundquistJames L.1983. Dynamics of the party system: Alignment and realignment of political parties in the United States. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
100.
SunsteinCass R.2009. Going to extremes: How like minds unite and divide. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
101.
UrmanAleksandra. 2019. Context matters: Political polarization on Twitter from a comparative perspective. Media, Culture & Society. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443719876541.
102.
WalterAnnemarie S.2014. Negative campaigning in Western Europe: Similar or different?Political Studies62:42–60.
103.
WangSamuel S.-H.CervasJonathanGrofmanBernardLipsitzKeena. 2021. A systems framework for remedying dysfunction in U.S. democracy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118 (50). Available from https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2102154118.
104.
WilkinsonWill. 2019. Urbanization, polarization, and populist backlash. Washington, DC: Niskanen Center. Available from https://www.niskanencenter.org.
