---

ELECTIONS AND PUBLIC VOICE
IN IDEAL MODELS OF DEMOCRACY

David Held provides a taxonomy of democratic models that range from classical Athenian democracy to modern capitalist democracy.^[2] I shall examine many of these models to illustrate the roles of public voice and elections in each conception of the democratic process. Despite the dramatic differences in the designs of various democratic models, each is structured to ensure a strong public voice and elected representatives who are either accountable for their actions or relatively powerless.

Though quasi-democratic systems of local rule have existed at various times throughout ancient history, the Athenian model has left behind the most powerful legacy. This is partly because of the elaborate design of the Athenian political system and partly because written records of Athenian democratic political philosophy have survived. Athens's government mixed direct election of public officials with selection by lot and the regular rotation of public offices. Even those who were duly elected had short terms in office and, in most cases, were not eligible to run for reelection. This system did not ensure accountability, but it removed the problem of entrenched incumbency by imposing what are now called term limits. At least in its ideal conception, the Athenian system gave members of the public many opportunities to share their concerns with officials. Short terms, the wide distribution of public offices, and frequent meetings of powerful public assemblies were designed to prevent single individuals from having undue influence on policy decisions.^[3]

The modern socialist model of democracy (not to be confused with actual systems such as the former Soviet Union) draws upon the Athenian tradition of face-to-face democracy. This ideal model uses many of the same institutions, but for large-scale systems, it replaces the direct assembly with a pyramidal council structure whereby the top-level planning body is connected through individual representatives back to thousands of lower-level, grassroots assemblies. In addition, this system places more emphasis on maintaining socioeconomic equality among citizens to ensure equal influence on policy. Public voice is the engine of this system, and the near-complete removal of representation by largescale elections makes the system dependent upon the quality of public ideas and their expression.^[4]

Modern participatory democracy maintains direct avenues for public involvement in policymaking through referenda and initiatives. The

---

hallmark of participatory democratic models is the challenging and powerful role of the citizen. Citizens may not have much direct authority, but they are expected to be active in their local communities, political parties, and national policy debates. By eagerly and regularly engaging in public discussion, citizens may develop strong opinions and become skilled at the forceful expression of their values. Civic skills and habits will ensure that citizens have a clear voice and that they make their views known both directly and through reasoned candidate choices during regular elections of public officials.^[5] Deliberative variants of the participatory model go a step further and encourage regular dialogue among citizens to bring their many views and voices together in search of an elusive moral consensus.^[6] But even deliberative democrats recognize that the public's voice must be coupled with an effective electoral process to ensure that public officials remain accountable for the actions they take as authorities.^[7]

Historically, relatively few large-scale political systems have modeled themselves on these three democratic ideals, partly because the models depend upon a highly motivated, skilled, and educated public. Many democratic theorists have held a more pessimistic view of the capabilities of the citizenry, and they have recommended a government that guards "the people" from themselves. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison advocated this "protective" model of democracy when he argued that "you must first enable the government to control the governed." In Madison's view, the public often forms self-destructive factions, so individual citizens should have only the power to vote for their representatives. Separate branches of government further insulate the political process from factionalism. Even though this model views the general public's voice as bothersome, Madisonian democracy still relies upon periodic elections to provide some measure of accountability.^[8]

Madison's vision had a powerful influence on the design of the American political system, but modern American political theorists more commonly describe the U.S. system as resembling a pluralist model of democracy. The basic difference is that pluralists view factions not as dangerous but as "a structural source of stability and the central expression of democracy."^[9] America's most influential student of democracy, Robert Dahl, developed the pluralist model in an attempt to describe the actual practice of American politics. Dahl argued that regular elections and political competition among diverse minorities and coalitions ensure a representative process. He later came to recognize

---

important differences between the pluralist ideal and the American political system, but his pluralist model remains largely unchanged. Like the Madisonian model, it relies on elections to ensure the accountability of public officials, but it also stresses the importance of public expression. If the people do not speak, pluralist government cannot craft policies that provide what the average citizen desires. By contrast, the Madisonian model views general public expression as white noise, and the more participatory models look for a "general will" among the public's many voices.

A final, capitalist model of democracy takes Madisonian and pluralist ideas to the logical extreme. The capitalist model of democracy assumes that individuals act in a way consistent with their own selfinterest in both economic and political life. Public officials are no exception to the rationality assumption, and they make political decisions that serve their interest in reelection. As a result, individuals and groups have political influence in proportion to their base of economic and political power. If these assumptions hold, then the political system should reach equilibrium so long as there are competitive elections to ensure proper political market performance. Even in this model, public voice still exists, albeit in the form of "market corrections" when officials misjudge the balance of power among competing interests. Regular, competitive elections are also pivotal, for without them public officials would begin to behave like unresponsive monopolies. The capitalist model of democracy is loathsome to many because of its unkind assumptions about human behavior and its reduction of public life to economic competition. Despite its alien form, however, even this purely economic model of democracy still has a place for minimalistic conceptions of voice and electoral action.^[10]

Modern democratic theorists disagree about which of these models best describes the American political ideal and existing political institutions.^[11] In practice, the American system is a hybrid of different models, with no one of them fully realized. Referenda and other ballot measures give citizens a chance to govern themselves directly, but the U.S. president is elected only indirectly through the Electoral College. Some egalitarian policies—from public education to campaign contribution limits—aim to equalize citizens' potential political influence, yet the most powerful economic interests wield considerable power in the political marketplace. Despite these complexities, it is possible to summarize both American political practices and ideals within a single abstract model, which the remainder of this chapter will develop.