Nearly everyone alive today lives in a country that is either a democracy or pretends to be one. The pretenders vary in their commitment to the bit. Some hold elections in which there is only a single option, or a question is posed for which “yes” is the only answer on the ballot. Others allow a measure of competition that is unfair but genuine; a heavy thumb is placed on the scale but under the right circumstances the opposition can in fact make at least some tangible gains. In all cases, however, the results are nearly always predictable, and indeed, predicted.
America’s democracy is not perfect and never has been. State legislative races in Wisconsin more closely resemble the “competitive authoritarianism” of the pretenders than the uncontrolled movements of the genuine article; Republicans turn a majority of votes into legislative supermajorities and a minority of votes into legislative majorities. These past two years, I have been worried that the country was drifting, or indeed running, towards convergence with Wisconsin rather than returning to the heyday of “one person, one vote.”
I do not know what direction we are heading; no one does. But one thing I do know is that no one predicted the results of this week’s midterm elections. Not one of the entire commentary class, including its many “forecasters.” The results were, to be sure, consistent with the polls. Polls do indeed provide some meaningful information in a free country where respondents are able to give honest answers without fear. But all they offer is a narrower set of possible outcomes that are more likely than others, and even this narrow set is quite broad. And more to the point, the forecasters and the pundits and the talking heads all, by election day, had come to agree that one outcome was all but guaranteed, and each had their explanations for it already on hand.
They were wrong. We are not Venezuela or Belarus, where elections follow a script that everyone knows in advance. Our country on the whole is not even Wisconsin. The scripts may have been written, but they were not followed; and now the playwrights have come up short. Some have made modest edits to what were plainly, in their first drafts, bold pronouncements on a dramatic outcome that failed to materialize. Others are more forthright in eating their crow.
I try not to form strong expectations ahead of an election. I understand that polls have a certain superior track record to gut instinct and confess to peeking at forecasts from the usual suspects. But by and large there isn’t much value for someone in the one world we have for models which tell you your odds of ending up in one of several possible ones. When I am offered five or six candidates, it may be good to know who actually has a fighting chance of winning before casting my vote. When I have two candidates and one of them belongs to a party that has recently shown itself unwilling to accept the results of elections, polls and forecasts have no practical lessons to offer me.
It was not until this week, however, that I realized how much I took the basic unpredictability of our elections for granted. That very unpredictability is precisely what sets us apart from even the most committed democratic pretenders. An unpredictable result is a truly human one, unforced by the powers that be. It is actual feedback, demanding an actual course correction not only from our political leadership, but from the observers and commentators on American political life. The voters did not follow their script, so they are forced to follow the voters to a degree that does not happen in the absence of genuinely open political competition. In previous years people have been mad at a divergence between the polls and the results; this year, amusingly enough, the results are not especially divergent. But what is there to be mad about? Is it not a good thing that we’re unable to predict the freely made choices of millions of human beings with sufficient precision to price in the results of elections ahead of time? Would we want to live in a world where the election itself was a mere formality? Many people do live in such a world. This week, I am once again reminded how grateful I am that I do not.
In 2020, when the results were in but the fight had not yet begun, Adam Rust told me that the story of that election might be called “The Center Held.” In the difficult days that followed, and especially after January 6, I came to wonder if that was really true. But today, as the candidates promoting lies about our election system are delivered a strong rebuke and the energy behind their efforts fizzles, and above all as American voters deliver a result that no one expected, I have to say he had it right after all. Two years later, we haven’t undone all the damage to our institutions nor made any of a number of greatly needed changes. But the center held. That alone is worth celebrating.
It is worth celebrating. It was a "win" for democracy -- yes I believe in democracy -- but it is just that A win -- singular.
Good piece and well argued.
The counter argument is the good old Overton window. The two factions of the imperial ruling duopoly fight vigorously on substantive issues for sure. But it is within a highly constrained range. It appears fulsome but there is much beyond the public purview.  The authoritarian utopianism of the liberal imperium brooks no dissent.
I’m fancy this morning.