The 2024 Presidential Election has taken a form different than any in history, many elements being questionable legitimacy and ethics wise, such as the substitution of Democratic Presidential Nominee Joe Biden to Kamala Harris.

Over the summer of 2024, American citizens watched as President Joe Biden took the stage for presidential debates, traveled the world to meet international leaders, and commanded the nation from Washington D.C. Americans also watched as Biden withdrew from the 2024 presidential election and Vice President Kamala Harris gleefully took his place. With the sharing of the initial presidential ticket, Biden Harris, and the substitution in the yard signs across America, to Harris Walz, millions questioned how this change act could be lawful without another Democratic primary being held.

In an unprecedented time for political polarization and elections being examined under the most scrutinizing visions, how could Kamala Harris top the Democratic ticket without the input of the registered Democratic voters?

She appeared to be the best option to the Democratic National Committee and head party leaders, who urged President Biden to rescind his campaign and allow Harris to take his place, giving Harris access to the campaign funds initially assigned to her superior. According to the FEC filings of the presidential campaign, since Biden and Harris have joint filing of the campaign funds they are to be used on either campaign, but this fails to answer the question of how Harris could simply represent the party without any voter or constituent say.

From the perspective of democratic erosion objectives, one could see this limit of accountability on the voter’s end as lacking in the Vertical Accountability in which voters can check Harris without obviously failing to elect her and Walz in the fall.
Does the fact that the voters have no way of challenging Harris on the democratic ticket supply evidence that the party is submitting to constitutional regression?

At the Democratic National Convention each state’s delegation voted to confirm Kamala Harris to the presidential nominee, but representing the opinions of whom? With Joe Biden topping the ticket when primary ballots were drawn and no election having occurred since, how can the Democratic Party be certain this decision is representative of their constituents’ desires?

As described by Huq and Ginsburg in their writing on How to Lose a Constitutional Democracy, the trend in society today leads to an increase in the regression of constitutional democracies. The authors define this form of regression as subtle, with weakened competitive elections, political rights, and the rule of law.

On two of the three aforementioned grounds, the above situation can be represented, with the elimination of the primary voting decision to elect the presidential nominee in the Democratic Party lessening political rights. Additionally, the fact that only two major political heads remain as options, both facing little to no competition within their respective parties, signals an extreme lack of competitive opinions internally.

Another aspect of the writing that is represented through Harris’ rise to the top of the ticket is a contraction of public spheres. Contraction of public spheres can be defined as the limiting or shrinkage of public forums for open conversation, opinion sharing, and discussion. With the lack of other primary candidates so late in the election cycle with President Biden’s withdrawal, there was no forum for Democratic nominees to arise against one another and debate for the public to view, helping craft and form educated opinions that could be exercised at the polls. Without a stage of discussion amongst the Democratic potential nominees, one sees a contraction in the conversation in general leading to an even larger contraction of the public sphere, eliminating alternatives for voters to sympathize or agree with more strongly.

On a final note about the Huq and Ginsburg reading, the authors found that America is not most at risk of the rise of a military coup or singular authoritarian dictator but more so the general collapse of Constitutional safeguards that hold institutions and precedents in place. They cite how democracy will remain in America via the decisions made by political elites and the mobilization of the public, fighting public opinion with dissenting public opinion. By creating a space and opportunity for voters to best represent their decisions fairly, such as in this case the Democratic Primary, constitutional democracy is maximized by constituents selecting those to represent themselves in the highest level of the federal government.

With Kamala Harris simply taking Joe Biden’s place atop the ticket one can question how much America currently relates to the prompts outlined by Huq and Ginsburg, and what power constituents truly have over their representatives to enact the changes they see fit.

Democrats lie in a tough situation here. By fighting the fact that the DNC overtook the Democratic Nominee for president, the constituents must use their only tool, the vote, to show their annoyance or dissonance and not vote for Harris. Yet the alternative of Trump winning the presidency is the precise reason why the nomination switch occurred in the first place; Harris’ odds of beating Trump appeared higher, so what are voters to do? The situation resembles choosing two bad options, yet one option relinquishes democratic rights making this situation the pinnacle of democratic erosion.