Despite the Framers’ disapproval of democracy and their intentions to establish a republican form of government, most, if not all, of the Americans today believe in the system of democracy. Some argue that the U.S. Constitution is democratic in itself, while others argue that it is far from it. In this essay, I will qualify the statement that the U.S. Constitution is a democratic document with two main points. While I concede to the point that the Constitution includes democratic elements such as the Bill of Rights, federalism, and the setup of the House of Representative, the electoral college and the Senate are exemplifies how the Constitution deviates away from the definition of democracy, a form of government that follows the rules of the
…show more content…
In contrast to the set up of House of Representatives, which requires proportional representation, Senate calls for equal representation for all states despite drastic differences in population among states. This raises the question of democracy in its nature and the consequences of California’s 32 million people having the same number of Senate votes as Wyoming’s 480,000 people and Vermonter having 30 times the voting power of a New Yorker. In his article, Liptak examines how this disproportionate representation plays a role in the political dynamic of issues, such as gun control, immigration and campaign finance. He mentions a disturbing observation that “recent bills to overhaul the immigration system and increase disclosure of campaign spending have won the support of senators representing a majority of the population but have not yet passed. A sweeping climate bill, meant to raise the cost of carbon emissions, passed the House, where seats are allocated by population, but not the Senate” (Liptak). How can one say that the Constitution is democratic when the Senate, one of the most important institution of the government, gives the small states immense power to prevent the majority from getting what they want and silence their desires? The original intention behind Electoral College to give extra power to the small states to prevent the tyranny of the majority has unfortunately backfired and ironically resulted in a tyranny of
In contrast to the set up of House of Representatives, which requires proportional representation, Senate calls for equal representation for all states despite drastic differences in population among states. This raises the question of democracy in its nature and the consequences of California’s 32 million people having the same number of Senate votes as Wyoming’s 480,000 people and Vermonter having 30 times the voting power of a New Yorker. In his article, Liptak examines how this disproportionate representation plays a role in the political dynamic of issues, such as gun control, immigration and campaign finance. He mentions a disturbing observation that “recent bills to overhaul the immigration system and increase disclosure of campaign spending have won the support of senators representing a majority of the population but have not yet passed. A sweeping climate bill, meant to raise the cost of carbon emissions, passed the House, where seats are allocated by population, but not the Senate” (Liptak). How can one say that the Constitution is democratic when the Senate, one of the most important institution of the government, gives the small states immense power to prevent the majority from getting what they want and silence their desires? The original intention behind Electoral College to give extra power to the small states to prevent the tyranny of the majority has unfortunately backfired and ironically resulted in a tyranny of