The Electoral College: Democracy's Friend Or Foe?

In his book, *How Democratic is the American Constitution?*, Robert A. Dahl, a political scientist, critically examines the American Constitution and why it continues to be upheld despite being a centuries-old document. Dahl identifies several undemocratic elements, including the Electoral College, which ties votes to geography rather than population, giving smaller states disproportionate influence. This, along with other features like the federal system, bicameral legislature, and judicial review, highlights the unique nature of America's political system and raises questions about its democratic legitimacy. Dahl's work challenges Americans to reflect on their political system's origins and explore ways to create a more democratic society.

Explore related products

Representation and the Electoral College

$26.75 $38.99

Why We Need the Electoral College

$16.71 $18.99

Why We Must Defend the Electoral College (Encounter Broadside)

$5.7 $9.99

Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America

$7.27 $29

The Importance Of The Electoral College

$5 $10

Presidential Elections and Majority Rule: The Rise, Demise, and Potential Restoration of the Jeffersonian Electoral College

$10.19 $25.99

The Senate and Electoral College tie votes to geography, skewing power to smaller states

The American political system has been criticised for its undemocratic elements, including the Senate and the Electoral College, which tie votes to geography, skewing power towards smaller states. This has resulted in a structural imbalance in national politics, with smaller states having disproportionate influence in the selection of the president.

The US Constitution allocates two senators to each state, regardless of population size. This gives smaller states a greater representation in the Senate per capita, creating a small-state bias. For example, California, the most populous state, and Wyoming, the least populous state, both have two senators, despite California's population being eighty times larger. This disparity is further exacerbated when considering that California tends to vote Democratic, while smaller states tend to vote Republican, thus skewing the political leanings of the Senate towards the latter.

This small-state bias carries over to the Electoral College, which allocates a number of electors based on the number of senators and representatives each state has in Congress. Each state gets an Electoral College vote for each of its senators, so small states get proportionately more electors. As a result, a Democratic candidate must win the popular vote by a significant margin to have a chance of winning in the Electoral College. This was evident in the 2020 election, where Joe Biden won the popular vote by over 7 million votes but only secured an Electoral College victory by a small margin in a few close states.

The impact of this discrepancy has been significant, with some presidential candidates winning through the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote. This has led to criticism that the system is undemocratic and that the focus on battleground states during elections results in an unequal political process. While there have been calls for reform, the polarised nature of American politics has made it challenging to implement changes.

The US Constitution's tolerance of slavery

The US Constitution's relationship with slavery is a complex and contentious issue. While the Constitution did not explicitly use the word "slave", it included protections for slavery that laid the foundation for future tragic events. The Three-Fifths Clause, for instance, gave southern states extra representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College by counting three-fifths of their slave population. This compromise was made to gain the support of southern delegates for a strong central government, but it set the stage for future conflict.

Many of the Founding Fathers, including James Madison, criticised slavery. Madison, often referred to as the "Father of the Constitution", attacked slavery early in the Constitutional Convention, stating that it was a ground for "the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man". Despite these moral qualms, 25 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention owned slaves, and the number of slaves continued to grow through natural increase and imports from abroad.

The issue of slavery caused sectionalism between the northern and southern sections of the nation, and Congress repeatedly postponed addressing the controversy through a series of compromises. Abraham Lincoln believed that the Constitution put slavery "in the course of ultimate extinction". However, this view is contested, with abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison burning the document in 1854, deeming it "a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell".

The 13th Amendment to the US Constitution, passed in 1865, finally abolished slavery, stating that "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime... shall exist within the United States". This amendment, along with the 14th and 15th Amendments, greatly expanded the civil rights of Americans, providing a constitutional solution to the issue of slavery.

Judicial rulings limit Congressional power

The American political system is often criticised for its undemocratic elements. One of the key figures in this debate is political scientist Robert Dahl, who identified seven undemocratic elements of the US Constitution. One of Dahl's criticisms is that judicial rulings can limit Congressional power.

The US Constitution was designed to impose limits on governmental power. In this respect, the judiciary plays a crucial role in interpreting and applying the Constitution, including ruling on the constitutionality of laws and decrees. This power of judicial review allows courts to strike down laws or executive actions that are deemed unconstitutional.

For example, in the case of Wiscart v. D’Auchy, the Supreme Court interpreted the scope of its appellate jurisdiction, concluding that it could only exercise such jurisdiction when authorised by an act of Congress. This interpretation limited Congressional power by defining the boundaries within which the Supreme Court could operate.

In another instance, the Supreme Court ruled against President Truman's seizure of steel mills during a labour dispute, arguing that it was an unlawful exercise of legislative power. The Court found that the seizure was not based on any congressional policy and instead established a new policy, overstepping the executive's authority.

Additionally, the power of judicial review extends to executive orders. Courts must determine whether executive orders based on inherent presidential powers are authorised by Congress or raise separation-of-powers concerns. If an executive order is found to be unconstitutional or beyond the president's authority, it can be struck down by the courts.

The impact of judicial rulings on Congressional power is further amplified by the life tenure of judges and the high barriers to their removal, making the judiciary a relatively independent and powerful force in the American political system.

Explore related products

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $14.95

The Constitution of the United States of America - The Declaration of Indepence (Deluxe, Hardbound Edition)

$9.99 $9.99

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$19.99 $3.89

The U.S. Constitution and Other Writings (Leather-bound Classics)

$13.21 $24.99

America's Constitution: A Biography

$4.99 $22

Federalism and bicameralism

The US Constitution establishes a bicameral legislature, which means that the legislative branch of the government is divided into two chambers or houses. In the US, these are the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The idea of a bicameral legislature was influenced by ancient republics and the British Parliament, which had two social orders: the hereditary aristocracy represented in the House of Lords and the freeholders of the land in the House of Commons. The Framers of the US Constitution believed that a bicameral system would reinforce the separation of powers and provide several other functions.

One of the key functions of bicameralism is to diffuse factional power. During the North Carolina Ratifying Convention, future Supreme Court Justice James Iredell argued that a bicameral legislature provided "double security" for the people. He suggested that a single legislative body could be dominated by a slim majority pushing through "exceptionable and pernicious measures", whereas a bicameral system would provide a check, with one branch confirming or amending the measures proposed by the other.

Another function of bicameralism is to balance the interests of the states and the population. The Great Compromise, which was critical to the completion of the Constitution, provided for a House of Representatives apportioned by population and a Senate in which each state had equal representation. This enabled a composite national and federal government.

Federalism, or the system of dividing power between the national and state governments, has also been influenced by the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment, which provided for the popular election of Senators. As a result, the differences between the two chambers of the US legislature have become less pronounced over time.

Presidentialism

In his book, *How Democratic is the American Constitution?*, Robert A. Dahl, a Sterling Professor Emeritus of Yale University and former President of the American Political Science Association, explores the question of whether the details of the US Constitution, as amended and practised in modern times, are superior or inferior to the constitutional systems of other stable democracies. Dahl identifies several undemocratic elements of the United States Constitution, including the tolerance of slavery, the federal system, the bicameral legislature, judicial review, presidentialism, and the electoral college system.

Dahl argues that the American Constitution, as an instrument for truly democratic government, fails to align with the principle of one person, one vote, also known as majority rule. He highlights the fact that innovation and change in democratic techniques and ideals continued even after the Constitution had been codified, and the American system has not adopted all of these new ideas. One example of this is the acceptance of slavery and the limitation of suffrage to white men during the Constitution's creation.

Dahl also criticises the electoral college and the Senate, which tie votes to geography rather than population. This results in votes from less populous states carrying more weight than those from more populous states, distorting the value of votes and skewing political power towards coalitions of smaller states. This can frustrate the will of the majority, as illustrated in the 2000 presidential election.

Dahl proposes that countries with proportional representation, which typically results in multi-party states and coalition governments, offer a purer form of democratic equality. He suggests that a proportional representation plus single-member districts system could be a potential solution for the House of Representatives to more accurately represent the electorate.

While Dahl acknowledges that he has occasionally oversimplified his arguments, his intention is not to provide an exhaustive political treatise but rather to encourage American citizens to change their thinking about the Constitution and consider potential reforms to make the United States a stronger democracy.

Frequently asked questions