How Democratic is the American Constitution? Second Edition Paperback – December 1, 2003

In a series of lectures transferred by Robert Dahl into essays, Dahl posits exactly what the model and implications of the US hybrid constitutional system actually is and shows that it does not, historically, balance democratic and minority rights. Dahl notices what many have noticed since the attempts to expand democracy into the Arab world have noticed, despite US's internal narrative about its democracy, it doesn't even impose its system on others: generally, when a state is made democratic by US intervention, it a given a parliamentary system or a presidential/parliamentary hybrid model.While this does lay the cause, and makes particularly insightful comparisons to other stable and long-established democratic systems, it is not very deep in its analysis. The extremely disproportionate nature of the Senate and increased US urbanization make votes worth different amounts, the winner take-all nature of most states, and the Presidential conflation of head of government and head of state are well-known to those familiar with political science. Dahl does spell out the consequences of this fairly well with comparisons to other systems, and points out that in several models, the US is unique: it's neither a consensus and majoritarian system, but an awkward hybrid of both. There are flaws here though, while evidence is presented in support of Dahl's thesis, the traditional counter-arguments aren't articulated completely. While some of the Federalist arguments are deemed irrelevant (and in the case of Hamilton even a bit inaccurate), other modern arguments about inefficiently of national popular vote and the centralization of power in major areas with Presidential systems (see Mexico City) leading even more corruption than in our system remain unaddressed.Dahl's critique of the supreme court is sound in many respects, but he does not deal the indirectly accountable through nomination by the President and approval of Congress. Nor does he deal with the crises of Latin American democracies with Presidential executives and weak-supreme courts because he 22 comparison nations do not readily include them. Dahl then can't deal with directly with the idea that indirect accountability may or may not be effective because it isn't factored into the argument at all.There are some areas where Dahl is particularly strong, including the idea of the party rules system and unstated governmental norms effectively constituted an unwritten constitution that states and parties could more easily systematically change than our current jammed amendment system. However, Dahl does not seem optimistic that this will happen.This is definitely worth reading if you unfamiliar with this line of critique, but is highly persuasive, but those who are more knowledgable may be slightly frustrated by what this book doesn't address because the nature of the lectures on which it is based.

This is a well written analysis of the many ways the Constitution deviates from the principle of one man one vote, which the author persuasively argues is the bedrock of a democratic government. Many deviations are historic and were necessary to have the constitution approved, such as two Senators for each state. This was called the Connecticut Compromise. The Electoral College was not well thought out and indeed the role of the President was a muddle that was passed in the last days of the convention with the delegates exhausted.The author looks at the two major forms of democracy: majoritarianism and proportionate representation (parliamentarianism) and concludes that our system has the vices but none of the virtues of either system. He points out that no country has adopted a constitution similar to ours, presumably because of its many defects, but he holds little hope that these defects can be corrected. For example, representation in the Senate can not be changed without the consent of the state involved, which will never happen.He doesn’t say much about the filibuster, which is not constitutionally required, and which gives the minority even greater rights. The book was written before the January 6 insurrection, Trump, the great steal, and the repressive voting laws being passed in red states. I wonder what he has to say now.

No matter what you may think of Dahl's views in this book, certainly it can be agreed upon that he provides and interesting and refreshing look at the U.S. Constitution. He brings up a few aspects of the Constitution that he believes are not so democratic in nature. These include the equal Representation amongst states in the U.S. Senate, the Electoral College system, and the broad judicial review powers that exist today that often trump the other two branches. Dahl's stated goal isn't necessarily to demand change, but rather, to provide a different perspective to make the citizenry view their Constitution as a tool of democratic principles. He doesn't believe citizens should simply view the document as something perfectly written and infallible. He reminds readers that the writers of the Constitution were only human themselves, and were subject to the same political compromises and considerations as politicians today. Overall a very good read.

Good scholarly examination of the Constitution in relation to the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers. I teach AP US History and will buy a copy for all teachers in our department and request our government classes make this a supplemental text. I would suggest this as a preliminarly reading for any student about to take a government or Foundations of American History survey class.The reading is not difficult and most High School students can understand the concepts presented, while college students can gain some advanced conceptual ideas, and private citizens interested in political debate over family dinners will be supplied with a wealth of ammunition for arguments as to the purpose and construct of the US Democratic-Republic.

first, this book is quite brief. less than 200 pages, large font and margins. i can see why he is recognized as a distinguished professor at yale. he is brilliant and engaging. he covered all of the essential topics and this book is a sound, middle-of-the-road text. there were just a few statements he made that i re-re-read, asking myself, "did he really say THAT?" i wish that he had covered more topics and gone into greater depth on those that he did address. perhaps he has done so in other texts? overall, this is an excellent book that is somewhat interesting.

Good book. The Constitution might have been cutting-edge in its day but it's now a disaster for our country that disenfranchises millions, empowers some minorities over others, and leads to people like Donald Trump becoming president Time for a re-write!

This book starts by placing the American constitution in its historical and social context. By using contemporary documents the author determines what the drafters of the constitution were trying to achieve, which was essentially a massive compromise. What they were producing was never intended to be a democratic set of rules, quite the converse. The idea that the country should be a democracy very quickly gained ground, but the damage to true democracy had already been done by the enormous compromises made in the constitution, for example slavery, states having the decision as to how to elect representatives, unequal representation in the senate, a president who is both head of state and the leader of the government and who is elected not by a popular vote but by an unrepresentative electoral college. The author eloquently explains that there was no model for a democratic republic at the time so the framers were feeling their way in the dark. There also seems to have been an inordinate amount of discord as to what a republic actually is. Certainly our modern day concept that a republic is the opposite of a monarchy doesn't seem to have been the accepted rule then. So the constitution is in many ways an anachronism, attempting to achieve goals which long ago became obsolete (in some cases within a few years of the drafting of the constitution) while damaging democracy in the modern world. To view the constitution as a masterpiece of political insight made by a group of matchless wonder kind is a gross misrepresentation of the facts, as well as historically inaccurate. So how has the constitution served? The answer can only be poorly. People who value freedom and democracy as much as Americans do deserve something better surely? Many alternatives, drawn from various constitutions, are debated here. The solution seems to be, as ever, proportional representation. However you view it PR produces good government which is also truly representative and therefore truly democratic.

Fine book and review and analysis of the democratic content of the constitution of the USA highlighting its shortcoming in a comparison with other long standing democracies. I recommend it highly.

La investigación plasmada en este texto, además de ser interesante, resulta útil para aquellos que hacen investigación en derecho constitucional y en ciencias políticas, pues brinda una perspectiva factual de la Constitución de los Estados Unidos (así como del nacimiento de tal país)