While polarization can be a positive tool for democracy, as identifiable differences can help organize voters’ views and increase participation, it also risks taking a life of its own, eroding meaningful deliberation and collaboration, fracturing the very bonds that hold us together. In American politics, polarization has reached dangerous levels where deep-seated political identities make it difficult for candidates, information, or circumstances to sway our opinions. To appeal to a polarized public, political parties adopt increasingly polarized behaviors, intensifying the public’s. This feedback loop is exacerbated by increased competition in elections, where winning is prioritized over governing. We may question whether a nation’s electoral framework and the extent of political polarization are correlated. America’s “winner takes all” structure exhibits greater polarization compared to more consensual systems such as proportional representation, an electoral system that elects multiple representatives in each district in proportion to the number of people who vote for them. Adopting such a system may mitigate the dominance of extreme positions within the two-party system and foster bipartisan compromise. Because polarized political institutions and the public’s perceptions are inherently connected, a cultural shift must accompany an institutional change concurrently. Depolarization mechanisms that humanize citizens through shared experiences and unbiased civic education could contribute to breaking down current barriers. Creating spaces such as Civic Assemblies where voters can debate social and political issues will promote deliberation “that can highlight where common ground exists and how it can be acted upon.” Ideally, when party polarization is reduced, the voice of “the People,” lost in modern-day politics, might be recovered. Additionally, we will have successfully abandoned the “Us versus Them” mentality that divides us.
Polarization is both a symptom and a cause of competition. Scholars find polarization arising from the “insecure majorities”’ in modern-day politics where almost every election offers the prospect of a change in party control. Because no party has a secure(d) position, they focus on ensuring their control rather than on governing. In doing so, they “define and dramatize party differences” by promoting an Us versus Them mentality that incentivizes citizens to not give credence to the other side. A loyalist’s need (on either side) to be correct often outweighs their desire to see things objectively, essential in any compromise. As explained in Lee’s Insecure Majorities, in Congress, “legislative compromises will often dishearten constituencies whose [complete and] enthusiastic support a member or party needs.” Fear of backlash alters political strategy. Former House Republican Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX) admits as much: “We committed to fashioning an alternative to every bill or amendment the Democrats proposed.” The psychological elements of the Us versus Them discourse provide perverse incentives for democratic backsliding. “In extreme cases, political identity can become all-encompassing; people view the “Other” with distrust, suspicion, or fear, and cease to interact with them – even segregating themselves into neighborhoods, social relationships, and news feeds with like-minded people.” This fear is exacerbated for the white middle class: the assumption is that politics is a zero-sum competition between different racial groups—what is good for people of color necessarily disadvantages white people. “Racial polarization of our two-party system has forced a choice between class interest and perceived racial interest…the majority of white people chose the party of their race. That choice keeps a conservative faction in power and blocks progress on the modest economic agenda they could [otherwise] support.” Polarization has worsened because as parties have homogenized, partisanship has come to represent a “mega-identity,” which encompasses one’s “religion, race, ethnicity, [and] neighborhood” in addition to their political party. Therefore, a change is required that minimizes the factors that lead to these homogenous parties.
While searching for solutions, it’s important to consider the systems we have in place that may amplify this psychology. In America’s “first-past-the-post” electoral system, each citizen resides in a district that elects a single representative for congressional and most state legislative elections. This means candidates with the majority of votes (even 51%) wins that district, leaving the ‘losers’ without representation in government. Recent global studies on democracies indicate a correlation between a nation’s electoral system and the level of political polarization. Majoritarian systems show a higher degree of polarization, characterized by an Us versus Them mentality, in contrast to more consensual systems such as proportional representation. “This does not necessarily mean electoral systems cause polarization, and certainly the way we vote is not the sole cause; likewise, changing the electoral system alone will not guarantee a more harmonious state of political affairs. But changing it is likely to help for several reasons.” Proportional representation, as an electoral system, allocates multiple representatives in each district proportionally to the votes received. For instance, if one-third of voters support a political party, the party’s candidates secure approximately one-third of the available seats. Across the world, “proportional representation is now widely acknowledged to be the most open and democratic form of elections.”
Changing our government structure to a more proportional system could create positive change in myriad ways. Firstly, it provides voters with greater choice, fostering a far more diverse political landscape. Diversity allows for the emergence of centrist parties in situations where the political center has vanished. Secondly, a proportional system enables voters to align more closely with representatives who share specific values on specific issues, allowing for broader perspectives, eliminating or at least minimizing the need for gerrymandering. This ensures votes carry equal weight, promoting a more fair and inclusive electoral process. A proportional system would also open political debates, as new parties “would articulate issues, ideologies, and interests that are now largely neglected.” Such issues would have to be included in candidate debates and in campaign coverage, for “their candidates would have a realistic chance of being elected.”
While changing America’s voting structure could greatly mitigate current polarization, “laws are merely expressions of society’s beliefs. It’s the beliefs that must shift for outcomes to change” There are several cultural mechanisms that may be implemented to break down barriers. Promoting intergroup contact would likely reduce the (other-party) prejudice that voters must commit to in their blind, binary party allegiance. However, this requires “contact be sustained, with more than one member of the group, including a genuine exchange of ideas, and between individuals of similar social rank.” A promising civic interaction model could leverage “Citizens Assemblies,” whereby representative citizens are brought together into meaningful contact – to deliberate over challenging social and political issues. “These assemblies can be thought of as a kind of jury duty for political deliberation, and they offer a platform for different groups to discuss issues in a way that can highlight where common ground [actually] exists and how it can be acted upon.”A clear solution “is that identity-based conflicts require common goals or a ‘superordinate’ sense of identity to bring people back together.”A larger sense of our collective selves may bridge our (relatively) smaller differences. This is a tactic taken by intuitive rulers for centuries; they would often leverage various traditions and ceremonies to bridge alliances between different groups. However, it’s crucial to recognize the risk embedded in superordinate goals: forming an ingroup creates outgroups. National pride can have consequences, and one may argue for pride in humanity instead.
While these proposed solutions might positively affect the negative polarization currently plaguing our politics, no system can guarantee a complete restoration of our democratic ideals. “There are always trade-offs, and agency — the choices that individuals make — is key to making any system work. Would-be political leaders who are willing to pursue polarizing strategies to gain power and seek personal or partisan interests will always exist.” Democratic safeguards, no matter how earnest and well-intended, may not always offer the anticipated checks on such behavior. Some citizens may lack the time or the care to be fully-informed participants, while others might be susceptible to polarizing messages due to anxiety or fear. (Our last two Presidents used such feelings as key parts of their messaging.) Polarization is a complex issue because of the feedback loop outlined in the introduction of this chapter. It’s difficult for the public to operate in non-polarized ways as they experience polarizing messaging from their political leaders. And while ideally, leaders would break away from these tactics; a concerning truth is that these tactics help leaders win in our current political framework. Ultimately, “whether polarization serves a constructive or destructive purpose for democracy depends on the behavior of both governments and opposition, new political actors and traditionally dominant groups.” Recognizing these complexities is essential when navigating the landscape of democratic government amidst the shape-shifting challenges created both organically and by design by political polarization – and those who use it to further their own interests.
