"How Democratic is the American Constitution" is the title of a book by Robert Dahl, a distinguished political science professor from Yale. To quote the book liner: "Refusing to accept the American Constitution as sacred text, Dahl challenges us all to think critically about the origins of our political system and to consider the opportunities for creating a more democratic society".
This task is made more difficult because the principles underlying
American "democracy" are rather schizophrenic. On the state level the People are sovereign. On the federal level we have a system of dual sovereignty... where the states and the People have suffrage and are both represented in Washington. Given our origins from sovereign colonies and the hardball politics of the Constitutional Convention, dual sovereignty was probably the only alternative at the time. Yet did the Framers' endless system of checks and balances set the primitive politics of 1787 in cement? Is the structure of the Constitution so rigid it's virtually reform-proof? Does the concept of dual suffrage make the US Constitution un- or anti-democratic?
As I wrote in a previous article, we're raised to understand why the Constitution is as it is. We were never encouraged to critique it or ask what desirable principles were compromised away at the Constitutional Convention. We are also raised to think how states and citizens within those states are represented. We're not to think about how any given CITIZEN is represented. Yet if we do, we uncover a hidden political realm that calls into question the official justifications for our system... thus its moral legitimacy.
As Hamilton wrote in Federalist 22 sophistry may require otherwise, but for all intents and purposes those sovereign states are merely the PEOPLE who live within. In actual practice the Constitution's recognition of state sovereignty is manifest as a series of anti-democratic vote weighing/dilution formulas that ultimately grant some CITIZENS a bigger vote than others based upon nothing else but their choice of state residence. These formulas underlie the Senate, the Electoral College, and the amendment process. In 1964 the Supreme Court ruled such formulas were illegal on all other levels of government. Was this the nation's first Affirmative Action plan?
The anti-democratic aspects of such schemes are mathematically verifiable. Currently about 15% of the population gets 50% of the Senate seats and it may soon be 10%. A Wyoming citizen's vote for president weighs about 3.5X that of a California citizen's vote. In 1900 the population ratio between the biggest and smallest states, California and Wyoming, was 16 to 1. Using 2005 US Census estimates it's now 70.9 to 1. This means any Wyoming citizen's vote for the Senate weighs about 70.9X that of any California citizen's vote. Here are the numbers. It shows a bumpy but clear demographic trend that is making the US Senate, therefore the Constitution itself, more and more anti-democratic.
2005... 70.945 : 1
2000... 77.019 : 1
1990... 65.610 : 1
1980... 50.402 : 1
1970... 60.078 : 1
1960... 47.618 : 1
1950... 36.437 : 1
1940... 27.547 : 1
1930... 25.169 : 1
1920... 17.627 : 1
1910... 16.288 : 1
1900... 16.049 : 1
When it comes to the amendment process about 3.8% of the population in the 12 smallest states can theoretically block any amendment. Some might believe that this insures that there must be vast unanimity before any amendment is passed. Not true. There is NOTHING in the Constitution to insure this. In fact the 3/4 smallest states that can ratify any amendment now consist of less that 40% of the population.
Then there's Election 2000. The anti-democratic EC formula gave each citizen's vote in Bush's Florida lead 1013X the weight in deciding the outcome of any citizen's vote in Gore's national lead. More on this in a future post.
In my last article I listed the elements that I believed insured a government is morally legitimate. I started with these two:
* Legislators represent people, not trees or acres.
* Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests.
The above was taken directly from a 1964 US Supreme Court voting rights case "REYNOLDS v. SIMS" which can be found here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=377&invol=533
"Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, and our legislatures are those instruments of government elected directly by and directly representative of the people, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system."
It goes on to make the moral case for one person, one vote... where all votes weigh the same. Unfortunately this moral standard does not, can not under current Constitution, apply to the federal government itself. Yet unless it does, we'll have more Election 2000s where the anti-democratic EC allows the minority to legally seize control of the government against the will of the majority.
(revised 3-25)
ulTRAX
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Monday, December 26, 2005
What Constitutes Morally Legitimate Government?
What makes a system of governance morally legitimate?
Here in the US, we're brought up not to think of such things. We're brought up to understand why our system is as it is, never to critique it. The Framers of the Constitution got it right back in 1787... end of story. If everyone believed that to be true, we'd still have slavery and women would be deprived of the vote.
I believe that each generation has a moral obligation to critique our system to determine how it can be improved. As a nation we should be grateful for the moral courage of past generations to fight for reforms. But is our generation failing this task?
What questions should we be asking? What standards should be used to measure moral legitimacy?
I subscribe to the simple test put forth in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
What's most relevant to this discussion is this phrase: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
But just how is that consent measured? What principles should a morally legitimate government embody?
This is tailored for the US political system. I believe the following democratic principles are essential:
* Legislators represent people, not trees or acres.
* Legislators are elected by
voters, not farms or cities or economic interests.
* One person, one vote.
* All votes are of equal weight.
* Minorities should have their interests protected though constitutional protections... NOT by granting them a bigger vote.
* There should be a strong culture of civic responsibility.
* Majority rules but sizeable minorities have institutional tools to obstruct the majority.
* Citizens have the right to vote their conscience and receive some representation in government.
* No citizen can be deprived of their vote.
* Citizens have the right to vote their conscience and NOT worry about the so-called "spoiler" effect.
* Electoral/political systems must accurately measure and reflect the will of the People.
* Electoral/political systems must encourage maximum citizen participation in elections.
* No candidate should win an election with less than 50% of the vote.
* Amending our Constitution should require a high bar, but not one so high that it makes the Constitution virtually reform-proof.
I also believe:
* Freedom of the press as an individual right is insufficient. The media must serve as the marketplace of ideas presenting all political perspectives not just the corporate/two-party viewpoints.
* The media must be free to serve as a counterweight to government.
* Money corrupts the democratic process and its influence should be limited.
I'll try to comment on each point in follow-up articles.
ulTRAX
Here in the US, we're brought up not to think of such things. We're brought up to understand why our system is as it is, never to critique it. The Framers of the Constitution got it right back in 1787... end of story. If everyone believed that to be true, we'd still have slavery and women would be deprived of the vote.
I believe that each generation has a moral obligation to critique our system to determine how it can be improved. As a nation we should be grateful for the moral courage of past generations to fight for reforms. But is our generation failing this task?
What questions should we be asking? What standards should be used to measure moral legitimacy?
I subscribe to the simple test put forth in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
What's most relevant to this discussion is this phrase: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
But just how is that consent measured? What principles should a morally legitimate government embody?
This is tailored for the US political system. I believe the following democratic principles are essential:
* Legislators represent people, not trees or acres.
* Legislators are elected by
voters, not farms or cities or economic interests.
* One person, one vote.
* All votes are of equal weight.
* Minorities should have their interests protected though constitutional protections... NOT by granting them a bigger vote.
* There should be a strong culture of civic responsibility.
* Majority rules but sizeable minorities have institutional tools to obstruct the majority.
* Citizens have the right to vote their conscience and receive some representation in government.
* No citizen can be deprived of their vote.
* Citizens have the right to vote their conscience and NOT worry about the so-called "spoiler" effect.
* Electoral/political systems must accurately measure and reflect the will of the People.
* Electoral/political systems must encourage maximum citizen participation in elections.
* No candidate should win an election with less than 50% of the vote.
* Amending our Constitution should require a high bar, but not one so high that it makes the Constitution virtually reform-proof.
I also believe:
* Freedom of the press as an individual right is insufficient. The media must serve as the marketplace of ideas presenting all political perspectives not just the corporate/two-party viewpoints.
* The media must be free to serve as a counterweight to government.
* Money corrupts the democratic process and its influence should be limited.
I'll try to comment on each point in follow-up articles.
ulTRAX
It's A Fresh Wind That Blows Against The Empire.
Greetings and welcome to the Reinvent America Blog.
My user name is ulTRAX. I've been a fixture in many political forums for years. Chances are we've met and whether you're a Democrat or on the far Right, most likely we've butted heads.
Since the anti-war movement of the 60's, I've been a political contrarian. I was a PoliSci/Sociology major as an undergrad and received a degree in Social Theory. While I've generally been to the Left of the narrow spectrum of US politics, I have also cherry-picked ideas from political traditions ranging from Libertarianism to Socialism. I would now describe myself as a Progressive... not to be confused with repackaged Liberal Democrats who as of late latched on to that same description.
Whether I've debated Democrats or Right-wingers my posts pulled no punches. But I've found that in a charged and often rancorous forum setting it's often not possible to fully explain one's basic values and approach to politics let alone develop ideas. Web debates are a flash in the pan... there's no lasting "end product". So one goal in creating this blog is to get off the treadmill, to slow down, and create a more structured and comprehensive presentation of what principles underlie my views. A second goal is to apply these principles to the ambitious intellectual exercise of reinventing America. Where would I, as a Progressive, want to take this nation in 50 years? Where would you? Why are changes desirable? What are the obstacles to change?
I hope you find these readings provocative and I look forward to your constructive and thoughtful comments!
ulTRAX
My user name is ulTRAX. I've been a fixture in many political forums for years. Chances are we've met and whether you're a Democrat or on the far Right, most likely we've butted heads.
Since the anti-war movement of the 60's, I've been a political contrarian. I was a PoliSci/Sociology major as an undergrad and received a degree in Social Theory. While I've generally been to the Left of the narrow spectrum of US politics, I have also cherry-picked ideas from political traditions ranging from Libertarianism to Socialism. I would now describe myself as a Progressive... not to be confused with repackaged Liberal Democrats who as of late latched on to that same description.
Whether I've debated Democrats or Right-wingers my posts pulled no punches. But I've found that in a charged and often rancorous forum setting it's often not possible to fully explain one's basic values and approach to politics let alone develop ideas. Web debates are a flash in the pan... there's no lasting "end product". So one goal in creating this blog is to get off the treadmill, to slow down, and create a more structured and comprehensive presentation of what principles underlie my views. A second goal is to apply these principles to the ambitious intellectual exercise of reinventing America. Where would I, as a Progressive, want to take this nation in 50 years? Where would you? Why are changes desirable? What are the obstacles to change?
I hope you find these readings provocative and I look forward to your constructive and thoughtful comments!
ulTRAX
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)