Attending a recent College Democrats of America meeting at Ohio State University was an opportunity to not only reflect on various aspects of democratic erosion within contemporary U.S. politics but also see real world examples of democratic erosion on my college campus.
The meeting I went to featured a combination of political activism, a guest speaker addressing current political issues, and encouragement to participate in protests. While these are all key aspects of civic engagement, they also highlight underlying threats to democratic norms and processes, particularly in the areas of hyper-partisanship, electoral manipulation, and the erosion of pluralism.
So how did this meeting actually show democratic erosion?
The meeting began with a call to participate in phone banking for Democratic candidates across Ohio. While phone banking is a democratic activity aimed at mobilizing voters, this practice can also contribute to hyper-partisanship, which is well known to be a significant driver of democratic erosion. As political parties increasingly mobilize their bases to support specific candidates, the lines between democratic participation and divisive partisan campaigning can blur.
In the book How Democracies Die, it is argued that hyper-partisanship weakens democracy by eroding key norms of mutual toleration and institutional forbearance, leading to a political climate where opponents are seen as enemies rather than legitimate competitors. Backed up by work by Jennifer McCoy, this constant polarization undermines democratic dialogue and makes governance more difficult by prioritizing party success over compromise.
The guest speaker at the meeting, David Donofrio, who is running for the State Board of Education in Ohio, highlighted another element of democratic erosion: voter disengagement and misrepresentation. Donofrio mentioned that Ohio’s State Board of Education elections are nonpartisan, meaning that party labels do not appear on the ballot.
While this might seem like a way to reduce partisan bias, it can have the opposite effect by confusing or disengaging voters who rely on party identification to make informed choices. When voters lack critical information, electoral outcomes can become disconnected from the electorate’s preferences, contributing to misrepresentation, a very subtle form of democratic erosion that Levitsky and Ziblatt, author’s of How Democracies Die, describe as a breakdown in democratic functioning, even while formal institutions remain in place.
Donofrio also addressed the popular issue of ‘gerrymandering’, though specifically referring to Ohio as a “rigged state” rather than a “red state.” As we know, gerrymandering is a form of electoral manipulation that distorts democratic processes by allowing politicians to draw district boundaries in ways that unfairly benefit their own party. For those who live in Ohio, you may know that Issue 1 on the ballot this year is all about gerrymandering and has been in the back of the mind of many Ohioans for some time (take this opinion piece on the snake by the lake as an example of this issue’s prevalence).
That said, Levitsky and Ziblatt highlight how institutional manipulation, like gerrymandering, undermines democratic fairness by distorting electoral outcomes without overtly breaking democratic rules. This undermines the principle of fair representation, as electoral outcomes no longer reflect the will of the people. Over time, gerrymandering fosters voter apathy and cynicism, further weakening democratic legitimacy.
The meeting also touched on broader cultural and social issues, such as trans youth rights in schools and the reduction of book banning. These issues reflect deeper trends toward authoritarianism and the erosion of pluralism. In the work “How to Lose a Constitutional Democracy”, erosion of pluralism is a key element of democratic decline, as democracy depends on the ability to protect minority rights and maintain open, inclusive discourse. When political discourse shifts toward censoring viewpoints or restricting rights, whether through book bans or attacks on marginalized groups, it undermines the foundations of democracy. This is done by fueling cultural wars and creating an environment of division, authoritarian tendencies gain traction, eroding democratic norms that emphasize inclusion and diversity.
Finally, the meeting concluded with an announcement encouraging participation in a protest against the current Republican Senate candidate. While protests are a legitimate expression of democratic engagement, they can also heighten polarization when they focus on opposing specific candidates or parties.
Not only does Levitsky and Ziblatt emphasize that extreme polarization leads to a breakdown of democratic dialogue, but it is also emphasized in work such as Milton Svolik’s Polarization versus Democracy. This dialogue referenced above can lead to instances where political opponents are no longer seen as legitimate actors but rather just political enemies. As we know when polarization intensifies, constructive debate and compromise become less likely, and democracy and democratic institutions often suffer as a result.
The College Democrats meeting was able to provide valuable insights into the complex ways that democratic erosion can appear, even in routine political activities that may not seem that complex from afar. From hyper-partisanship and voter disengagement to electoral manipulation and the erosion of pluralism, these elements highlight the subtle but pervasive threats facing democracy today.
Democratic erosion often occurs gradually, through the decay of norms and the manipulation of institutions, rather than through outright collapse. Recognizing these trends, no matter how big the event or setting may seem, and understanding their impact is essential for safeguarding the democratic processes that are foundational to a free and fair society.
While I appreciate Traver’s perspective on a College Democrats meeting, I found myself disagreeing with many of the main points of this blogpost. According to Traver, the meeting involved political activism, a guest speaker, and encouragement of protest. Traver identifies all of these as “highlight[ing] underlying threats to democratic norms and processes.
Firstly, Traver claims that phone-banking practice can “contribute to hyper-partisanship [driving] of democratic erosion. As political parties increasingly mobilize their bases to support specific candidates, the lines between democratic participation and divisive partisan campaigning can blur.” I disagree. Political party volunteers informing voters of why they should support a candidate is not a threat to democracy, it’s an essential and fundamental feature of multi-party democracy. Whether on the phone, or by text, or at the doorstep, electioneering is a celebration of free-speech, as volunteers and party officials provide information to voters so that they may cast an informed vote.
Several other blogposts on this site express a similar view to my own, that canvassing can be a rewarding and democratic experience. Though political parties are certainly not perfect, they are useful institutions to organise the political process and make elections more clear to voters. When faced with Ohio’s mandatory nonpartisan Education Board Elections, even Traver agrees, insisting that nonpartisan ballots may “confus[e] or diseng[e] voters who rely on party identification to make informed choices.” I agree.
Traver correctly identifies infringements on literary freedom and minority rights as threatening to democratic pluralism. I did, however, disagree with her assertion that protests can “heighten polarization when they focus on opposing specific candidates or parties.” While polarisation might constitute a concern for democracies, I don’t believe that discouraging or disparaging the right to protest and assembly is an effective way to encourage cross-partisan reconciliation.
Similar to the commenter above me, I enjoyed reading Anne’s blog post but found myself disagreeing with her views on phone-banking & the banning of books.
Starting with phone-banking, I wanted to echo Julian’s point and view it as a positive force for functional democracies. While Anne argues that phone-banking can fuel hyper-partisanship and blur the lines between democratic participation and divisive campaigning, I see it differently. Direct conversations with voters provide accurate information from party representatives, reducing the spread of disinformation through media sources. As long as these calls remain peaceful, mobilizing support for a common cause, regardless of the side, enhances civic engagement rather than eroding democracy. In my experience, phone-banking fosters informed and active participation, which is essential for a healthy democracy.
Furthermore, if we’re left without phone-banking or marketing of information, how would we even get information out there? I think the alternative to phone-banking could be far more undemocratic than the practice of marketing like this itself.
Also, Anne states that “The meeting also touched on broader cultural and social issues, such as trans youth rights in schools and the reduction of book banning” but then states that “When political discourse shifts toward censoring viewpoints or restricting rights, whether through book bans or attacks on marginalized groups, it undermines the foundations of democracy.” So my question to her would be, isn’t a reduction in the banning of books good for our democracy if we’re predicating it on less censorship and restrictive rights?
Overall though, I thought she advanced a clear argument and was obviously engaged enough with an in-person event to write about it, so that was neat to see as writing about something in our personal lives had never even crossed my mind!