The Role of the Citizen in a Constitutional Democracy
Despite major conflicts and social changes, the American Constitution has offered a framework of governance for over two hundred years. The Framers of the American constitution sought to create a government free of tyrannical rule—where power derives from the consent of the governed. The US constitution outlines a form of national government that aims to serve the American people by protecting their rights and liberties. The US constitution is succinct and difficult to amend; congress has only passed twenty-seven amendments since the ratification of the constitution. In this essay, I will analyze the arguments Robert Dahl’s presents in his book “How Democratic is the American Constitution” …show more content…
First, why we as American citizens are bound to uphold our constitution? Second, have we had an opportunity to express our views on our constitutional system? Third, how has the constitutional system served our democratic values? Dahl uses the eight chapters in his book to offer plausible answers to the questions he proposes. Dahl begins by outlining the historical roots of the constitution. Then, he illustrates the parameters that confined the framers during the construction of the constitution; Dahl argues limitations and compromises caused undemocratic flaws in the constitution. He illustrates how the constitutional system has changed and concludes it no longer resembles the constitution created by the Framers. Dahl highlights the undemocratic flaws of the original constitution. Although some flaws resolved through amendments, others remain largely problematic—a primary example being the electoral college. Dahl offers alternative suggestions to replace the electoral college; however, he notes the difficulty of ratifying new amendments in congress. Dahl examines the performance of the American constitutional arrangement by comparing it to other democracies. Subsequently, Dahl examines the link between political equality and political democracy and rejects Tocqueville’s argument because the pattern of democratic development contradicts his assertion. Dahl concludes, with the idea that …show more content…
The Electoral College is another undemocratic aspect of the American constitution that Dahl opposes. It is a system of voting that is unique to the American constitution, other democracies in the world do not have such a system. The Electoral College has simply sanctioned the popular vote. However, when the race is close, the Electoral College may end up selecting the candidate who did not receive the popular vote—which occurred in the recent 2016 Presidential race. Dahl argues the electoral college distorts equal representation . Two solutions Dahl offers that could make the Electoral College more democratic are: one, a constitutional amendment that abolishes the Electoral College, in which direct election takes place; two, a run-off between the top two candidates if neither win the majority . I agree with Dahls argument; the United States should purse one of these practical solutions. Given the circumstances surrounding constitutional amendments, it is difficult to abolish the Electoral College. However, this is not to say it is impossible—voicing awareness on the need to reconsider the Electoral College system is
Despite major conflicts and social changes, the American Constitution has offered a framework of governance for over two hundred years. The Framers of the American constitution sought to create a government free of tyrannical rule—where power derives from the consent of the governed. The US constitution outlines a form of national government that aims to serve the American people by protecting their rights and liberties. The US constitution is succinct and difficult to amend; congress has only passed twenty-seven amendments since the ratification of the constitution. In this essay, I will analyze the arguments Robert Dahl’s presents in his book “How Democratic is the American Constitution” …show more content…
First, why we as American citizens are bound to uphold our constitution? Second, have we had an opportunity to express our views on our constitutional system? Third, how has the constitutional system served our democratic values? Dahl uses the eight chapters in his book to offer plausible answers to the questions he proposes. Dahl begins by outlining the historical roots of the constitution. Then, he illustrates the parameters that confined the framers during the construction of the constitution; Dahl argues limitations and compromises caused undemocratic flaws in the constitution. He illustrates how the constitutional system has changed and concludes it no longer resembles the constitution created by the Framers. Dahl highlights the undemocratic flaws of the original constitution. Although some flaws resolved through amendments, others remain largely problematic—a primary example being the electoral college. Dahl offers alternative suggestions to replace the electoral college; however, he notes the difficulty of ratifying new amendments in congress. Dahl examines the performance of the American constitutional arrangement by comparing it to other democracies. Subsequently, Dahl examines the link between political equality and political democracy and rejects Tocqueville’s argument because the pattern of democratic development contradicts his assertion. Dahl concludes, with the idea that …show more content…
The Electoral College is another undemocratic aspect of the American constitution that Dahl opposes. It is a system of voting that is unique to the American constitution, other democracies in the world do not have such a system. The Electoral College has simply sanctioned the popular vote. However, when the race is close, the Electoral College may end up selecting the candidate who did not receive the popular vote—which occurred in the recent 2016 Presidential race. Dahl argues the electoral college distorts equal representation . Two solutions Dahl offers that could make the Electoral College more democratic are: one, a constitutional amendment that abolishes the Electoral College, in which direct election takes place; two, a run-off between the top two candidates if neither win the majority . I agree with Dahls argument; the United States should purse one of these practical solutions. Given the circumstances surrounding constitutional amendments, it is difficult to abolish the Electoral College. However, this is not to say it is impossible—voicing awareness on the need to reconsider the Electoral College system is