I recently finished A Different Democracy, the comparative politics book that's been making the rounds among neoliberal Twitter recently. It measures the American political system against 31 other democracies, most of them developed countries. There's not much to 'review' as it's not really an opinion piece or polemic, but simply a factual recounting of how America- the world's oldest present democracy, depending on how you want to count it- is markedly different from other 1st world democracies. I wanted to write a quick summary of the differences that caught my eye- some of them quite remarkable!
- A presidential versus parliamentary system is probably the most well-known. The United States and South Korea are the only 1st world countries to use a presidential system- the rest are parliamentary, and the rest of the presidentials are mostly in Latin America.
- Unusually difficult to amend constitution. The US was the only country in their study to require a three-quarters majority of the states to amend the constitution, plus also requiring a second step in the legislature. Most countries only required a two-thirds majority for amendment, plus some required a second step such as a referendum.
- While the United States only having two major political parties has been noted quite a bit, the US is also unusual in having no regional parties despite being a federal system. Almost every other country using federalism- states or provinces with some degree of political autonomy- have separate parties at the regional level. Many countries (like Canada) have little connection between the regional parties and the federal ones- but not the US, where it's the same two parties at every single level of government, from the top to the bottom.
- Single seat legislative districts are not super common (lots of mixed member/PR list systems out there), and single member plus a plurality voting system is only found in the US, the UK, Canada and India- either the British Empire or its descendants
- Huge number of elected offices- 'no other democracy comes even close to the American system of directly electing very large numbers of legislative, executive, and judicial officeholders.' And for unusually short terms for a number of offices (discussed in greater detail below), leading to frequent elections of 2 to 3 times a year on average- versus an average of one election per year for most other democracies
- The almost complete absence in other developed democracies of term limits, recall elections and permanent felon disenfranchisement
- A relatively large number of referenda at the state level (and the absence of referenda at the national level)
- Relatively low voter turnout at 57%- other democracies in the study averaged 60-90% turnout (a number of countries do mandate that citizens vote)
- A 'strict' two party system- the US is famous for having among the lowest number of effective political parties in any democracy. The sheer weirdness & exceptionalism of the American party system deserves a deeper look:
- The United States is unique in its universal usage of primaries. No other country uses primaries as extensively, or allows them to be so wide-open- the concept of an 'open primary' or a candidate such as Bernie Sanders running for the office of a party he doesn't belong to, simply does not exist anywhere else on planet Earth. Primaries greatly weaken party leadership & discipline by removing their control of who runs for each office, and it sets individual candidates against each other. They help maintain the two party system- candidates or broader movements that would form a splinter party in another country are better served to try to take over the existing Democratic or Republican infrastructure instead. After all, the party can hardly stop them! American political parties have virtually no control over who runs for their offices, or under their banner, or the content of their candidates' campaigns, policies, messaging, personality or- and here is the biggest difference of all- voting record. The book dryly describes American parties as 'nonhierarchical', which could also be phrased as 'very weak'
- Unusually long campaigns for office (a year or longer for the Presidency), plus very frequent elections as already noted. The House of Representatives (discussed more below) is essentially perpetually campaigning
- Crucially (very, very crucially, I would argue), candidates do their own individual fundraising- as opposed to party funds being distributed as the party sees fit. This is in keeping with the primary system, and the general candidate-centric nature of American politics. I'd also argue that this not just further weakens the parties, but strengthens activist & various interest groups, who are now free to fund candidates as they see fit- in exchange for their future votes, of course. In general, activist & interest groups are stronger in the US, with its weaker parties who cannot enforce discipline on specific policies
- Need for a supermajority to pass legislation in the Senate is unique or close to unique among all democracies. Furthermore, the US is definitely unique in having a stronger second chamber of Congress- most countries that are not unicameral have a weaker one (say, the House of Lords), a few have two symmetrical chambers, and no other country has a stronger second chamber that also requires a supermajority to pass legislation
- The House of Representatives is unique among major democracies in only having two year terms. Three other countries studied in the book had three year terms for their legislators- the rest used four or five year tenures. The practical effect of this is that the modern-day House is in almost perpetual campaign mode
- The Electoral College system for selecting the US President is famously unique among modern democracies, though Argentina had a similar system until 1995 (also utilizing a federalist system of electors from each state). Also, eight out of the other twelve presidential systems studied in the book use a two-round runoff system, to ensure that the winner enjoys majority and not just plurality support
- Contrary to popular belief- unusually weak Presidential powers over legislation, compared to other presidencies. For instance, Brazil's President can issue emergency proclamations that become immediate law for 60 days unless Congress overrules him or her- and Argentina's President can do the same, but the 'emergency' decrees have no time limits at all. Brazil, Chile and South Korea also grant their President 'integrative' powers such as unilaterally setting a limit on the federal budget, or establishing some type of legislation as off-limits to Congress. Argentina, Brazil and Colombia also allow for partial or 'line item' Presidential vetoes. The US President can do none of these things
- Historically, no other country on planet Earth has elected judges, as the US does in some states (Bolivia has recently begun doing so, and there are scattered exceptions in a few Swiss cantons). The practice is almost literally unheard of
- Most other countries do not appoint judges to true life terms (all civil law systems have a mandatory retirement age, usually at 70). The US judiciary is unusually powerful and also has a bit more of an openly political appointment process than most other democracies
- Interestingly, the combination of a common law system and strong judicial review is quite rare- the UK, the progenitor of common law, does not give its judiciary powerful review over its laws
