Democrats can’t – Democrats’ 2024 “protect democracy” message landed with many voters, but more than a year into President Donald Trump’s second term, the argument hasn’t translated into urgency. Gallup polling shows over 60% of Americans dissatisfied with democracy as it stand
When President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris asked Americans in 2024 to “protect democracy” from candidate Donald Trump. they framed the choice as an existential threat to the political system. They repeatedly pointed to warnings about Project 2025. and to the extreme anti-immigration goals associated with aides like Stephen Miller—arguing that a second term would tilt the country toward a more authoritarian order.
More than a year into Trump’s second term, that pitch hasn’t moved the electorate the way Democrats needed. Trump has expanded executive authority drastically. targeted political enemies through the traditionally apolitical Justice Department. and marginalized Congress in the run-up to another war in the Middle East. He has also engaged in a midcycle redistricting push designed to help win the midterm elections before they begin.
The problem, Democrats’ critics argue, isn’t that Americans don’t care about democracy. It’s that many want it fixed—made responsive, fairer, more accountable—rather than simply defended as a concept.
Over 60 percent of Americans say they are unsatisfied with democracy as-is, according to Gallup polling. The frustration shows up in the lived sense that people have less and less agency: in selecting the president through the Electoral College; in shaping Congress amid gerrymandering; and in the Supreme Court’s structure. where justices serve for life.
This week, on the America, Actually podcast, host of the episode spoke with Amy Walter, publisher and editor-in-chief of the Cook Political Report, about what Trump’s redistricting effort is doing and what it would take to improve democracy—not just protect it.
Walter’s first point was that the primary system has changed in ways that hollow out its purpose. The system was created more than a century ago to take nominations away from party bosses in smoke-filled rooms. But Walter argues the dysfunction has returned in a new form. The primary process. she said. has become as corrupted as it was back then—driven by a flood of outside money attached to issues or corporate interests. and by a primary electorate that skews “very far left or right.”.
Her proposal is a single national primary day instead of months of state-by-state primaries, using an open ballot so “every voter is allowed to vote,” without needing to be a Democrat or Republican. It won’t solve everything, Walter acknowledged, but it would address a major problem.
The second issue is redistricting itself—and the danger that it can erase the very representation voters expect. Walter tied that concern to the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In her view, the ruling has given Republicans something like a four-to-six-seat advantage in redistricting battles.
In the short term, maps in Tennessee, Louisiana, and Alabama have “basically took three Black-majority districts, two of which were represented by Black members of Congress, and made them safely Republican.” Alabama’s new map, however, is still being litigated.
The longer-term threat, Walter warned, may not be one party alone. She said the same logic can push Democrats to break up their own majority-Black and majority-Hispanic seats so those voters are spread into more winnable districts. Walter framed it as a “real messy” conundrum: both parties may decide minority representation isn’t the priority.
Walter also pointed out that reforms on paper don’t automatically translate into better governance. California offers a warning in that regard. The state has a wish list of electoral changes—open top-two primaries, easy registration, mail-in voting, and ballot initiatives. But, as Walter put it, “It doesn’t mean that the state is governed better.”.
What ties these problems together, she said, is the incentive structure. A member of Congress who keeps their head down and gets stuff done gets nothing. while the system rewards those who make the most noise. do the most damage. and refuse to compromise. Until that changes. Walter said. “you can create all the reforms you want. but if people feel like the system is broken. they’re not going to participate.”.
For Democrats, the stakes are larger than campaign language. The “save democracy” message may have met a brick wall in 2024. but the dissatisfaction it ran up against is broader than messaging strategy. It’s about whether voters believe the system listens—and whether it can be made to work for everyday life. including affordability and the cost of living. which are increasingly rising on the priority list.
The question facing both parties now is whether they can offer improvements that feel concrete enough to bring people back into the process—at a moment when redistricting and election rules are reshaping who gets a say. and when the incentive to compromise appears to be getting punished rather than rewarded.
Democrats democracy Trump second term redistricting Amy Walter Gallup Voting Rights Act Louisiana v. Callais primary elections gerrymandering Electoral College