Quantcast

OPINION: A Healthy Democracy Requires An Actual Democracy

May 21, 2026
–
David Muccigrosso

The RTC recently averred in a letter to this esteemed website that “[a] healthy democracy requires respect and civility“.

I humbly submit to my fellow Norwalkers that before we fret about such issues, we should consider whether we even have a democracy in the first place.

Barely 18,000 of Norwalk’s 63,000 registered voters voted for our mayor last year, in 2025. That 63,000 doesn’t even include the number of eligible voters. This is no “democracy”, it’s an oligarchy, plain and simple.

Moreover, although we do have the somewhat-enlightened fusion voting system, our elections are still conducted under the dilapidated, obsolete embarrassment that is First-Past-The-Post. This system, not to mention the countless little restrictions and obstacles put in the way of third parties, relegates those parties to being perpetual spoilers. They have no chance at winning. They and their voters are effectively disenfranchised by the utter absence of proportionality.

This is not a democracy. It’s abhorrent. Two choices is barely any better than one or zero. When we play the classic game “Twenty Questions”, we consider it a silly, arbitrary challenge to confine the questioner to questions with only two possible answers; and yet when it comes to the bedrock of our democracy, we have no problem imposing such an arbitrary rule? Why, because “it’s just how it’s always been done”? Because we Americans love our British-inherited anachronisms so much? Because it would be too hard to make our ballots more complex?

This is madness.

Anyone with a conscience and even the most tepid of intellects should be offended. Politics is complex! The system already excludes voters by being dominated by a decrepit, corrupt two-party duopoly! Not to mention the absurdity of off-year elections, whose supposed sanctity against national politics is daily violated by those who purport to defend it.

The best solution is to enact multiple-member districts, so that seats can be proportionalized to votes. And yet, the best suggestion we ever get is the farce of “minority party representation”, which keeps the same winner-take-all districts and just hands a couple off to the same minority who’s just going to get dominated by 11-4 council votes instead of 13-2. A cynical observer might conclude that the RTC clearly prefers to wait its turn to dominate Democrats right back from within their cushy duopoly, rather than achieve actual small-d democratic outcomes.

Norwalkers want change. They want more parties than this sick duopoly. And until that duopoly decides to do right by the people, neither the RTC nor the DTC’s pretentions about “[a] healthy democracy” should be taken seriously.

Editor’s note: This piece is an opinion article. The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the perspectives of the publication or its staff.

More Stories

Comments

14 responses to “OPINION: A Healthy Democracy Requires An Actual Democracy”

  1. Priscilla Feral

    One person, one vote defines democracy.

    The change needed is an end to the daily grift and corruption by the Trump administration.

    1. David Muccigrosso

      “One person, one vote” has unfortunately been interpreted by the courts in ways that don’t necessarily make sense to the common person, and also which unnecessarily restrict us from adopting better voting systems.

  2. Matthew Silber

    David, you and I are in total alignment regarding the obsolescence of “first-past-the-post” voting systems. I believe you and I both contacted our representatives in support of SB 386, which would have supported ranked-choice voting systems in primaries.

    Low voter turnout is difficult nut to crack. because if we want more people to vote, we’d have to make voting compulsory. That would mean charging people a fee if they fail to show up to the polls, which would obviously be extremely unpopular. For better or worse, a lot of people just don’t pay much attention to local politics, and see no reason to vote when they aren’t aware of the specific issues at stake.

    1. David Muccigrosso

      The turnout is a tough nut to crack, but it doesn’t necessarily involve compulsory voting.

      We could increase the number of precincts, expand early and mail-in voting, and countless more things. Not to mention, simply having more viable options would gradually increase turnout by giving people more of a reason to actually hope for better outcomes from their local systems.

      My broader point is, we are ruled by a patchwork of local tyrannies that purport to add up to a state and federal democracy. This is just anathema to the entire idea of a representative, democratic republic.

  3. Kimmi Krieger

    Iliana makes a good point: when more citizens get involved in the town committees, we get more and better ideas, energy, and candidates for office!

    I’m a member of the Norwalk RTC, and I encourage anyone who wants to get involved to come to one of our meetings. The next one will be June 15 at 7:30pm at the Norwalk Inn.

  4. Michael McGuire

    Interesting take on things. I would posit that Democracy is healthier and more robust than most think. Since the advent of the internet the population has become more engaged politically. This resulted in Donald Trump’s first term. Like it or not consider what happened from that moment to present. Putting aside all the noise the signal did emerge that the ‘swamp was being drained’ but not emptied. Now we can all see, or begin to see, the swamp creatures that occupy these once opaque waters.

    This was not done overnight. Nor was it done by entrenched incumbents of both parties. It was done by the people at the ballot box, as flawed as that might be.

    What we are seeing now is the steady dismantling of the entrenched establishment. But the establishment (Rep. & Dems.) will not go quietly. Instead, they push back with chaos on a grand scale with – open borders, race baiting, antisemitism, two-tiered judicial system, a useless mainstream media providing little more than opinion, failing schools (at all levels from K-Grad), a highly suspect election system, etc., etc. – confusion and skepticism at all levels.

    Both parties are being fundamentally altered – which is a good thing, democracy at work. One is harking back to the Constitution and for what it stands, the other for a broader and more progressive restructuring of government. Who is right? Who knows.

    The bottom line is democracy is working despite all the noise. Emptying the swamp is our job and it takes time.

    Never bet against the American people.

  5. Iliana Zuniga

    One thing I do agree with in this article is that a healthy democracy requires more participation from all of us — not less. But that participation cannot begin and end with voting every few years. It has to start locally, with people becoming involved in the actual process of how candidates, priorities, and decisions are shaped within their own communities and political parties.

    Local town committees matter more than most people realize. The candidates people eventually vote for — whether Republican or Democrat — are often identified, supported, and elevated through these local groups. If the same small circles keep making all the decisions, recycling the same names through positions year after year, then we cannot be surprised when people feel disconnected from the process.

    Earlier this year, I decided to run for my local committee not because I have ambitions for public office, but because I believed we needed broader representation, more diverse points of view, and more voices involved in the conversation. I have a full-time job. I take care of my family. I did not sign up because I enjoy spending evenings in long Zoom meetings. I did it because I believe democracy only works when ordinary people are willing to participate in it.

    And this is not about one party. Republicans and Democrats alike should ask themselves whether decisions are being made by an open and representative group of people, or by the same small networks that continue to rotate through positions of influence — from smaller elected positions all the way up to the Common Council and mayor’s office.

    Showing up to vote once every four years is not enough, especially right now. Democracy requires involvement, attention, time, and sometimes discomfort. But if we are unwilling to invest any of that, then we also should not be surprised when we feel unheard or unhappy with the direction things are going.

    As I said before, the people most threatening to closed circles are often not the ones seeking political careers, but the ones who simply want to participate, ask questions, and make the process more open for everyone.

    1. David Muccigrosso

      Sooo the solution to the two-party duopoly is… to join their machine?

      Their duopoly is morally illegitimate and a violation of democracy. They’ve locked down every aspect of the process, top to bottom,

      As an outsider, what I see is that any time someone “shows up” and “participates”, they get sucked into this vortex of *the process*. I share almost every policy goal and opinion with the Sustainable Streets crew, but I recoil in horror at how much effort they have to pour into just getting a handful of bike lanes that will never turn into a comprehensive alternative to driving cars everywhere. It’s a hideous logroll! I respect their dedication, but they *shouldn’t* have to work so hard just to get a few crumbs from a machine that has no moral legitimacy in the first place.

      Democracy works when you have a working democracy. Ours isn’t.

      1. Michael McGuire

        Why is a two-party system morally illegitimate and a violation of democracy?

        1. David Muccigrosso

          What’s illegitimate is the absolute control they’ve consolidated over the electoral system.

          Having two choices is not a problem in and of itself. Sometimes a question — political or otherwise — is inherently yes/no.

          Having ONLY two choices, a decision set up for you by those two choices themselves… is not honest dealing.

          1. Michael McGuire

            True it doesn’t look too good with all the noise going on. Putting aside the median-hyped polarization of the left and right, the underlying party planks and ideologies are shifting, rapidly. And those of both parties that cling to the establishment ways are being voted out of office, rapidly.

            That being said to re-establish balance I think both parties need to move to the opposite ends of the political see-saw. For far too long both sides have been huddled to close to the middle and collusion ensued. Sending them to opposite corners stymies the ‘absolute control’.

            Have faith.

      2. Iliana Zuniga

        Becoming part of the solution and actually advocating for diversity of voices does more than complaining online or posting op-eds.

  6. David Muccigrosso

    The Federalist Papers were op-eds.

    1. Iliana Zuniga

      Keep telling that to yourself from the comfort of your keyboard Mr. Hamilton.

Leave a Reply

Newsletter

Chalk Talk promo
Secret Link