Constitutional Proposals (or reflections upon reading Dahl)

In his book, How Democratic is the American Constitution?, Robert Dahl points out several aspects of our constitution which he views as being “less than democratic”. Although a number of these aspects of the original document have since been changed through amendments, several defects remain. Briefly stated, the major elements, as Dahl notes them, concern the election of the president (the electoral college), unequal representation in the Senate, judicial power, and lack of either strong majoritarianism or proportional representation in the government. In a series of upcoming posts, I will outline what a U.S. Constitution which has been rectified to overcome these undemocratic elements could conceivably look like.

My purpose in this is not to dishonor our noble Constitution, but, rather, to foster educated discussion of a democratic nature, as is fitting for citizens of a republic. Accordingly, all comments will be welcomed and, in most cases, published on the forum. I will begin with the issue of the Electoral College.

Presidential Election. The electoral college is an institution which, I believe, has outlived its relevance. It appears to me that the college functioned as the founders intended it to for the election of Washington and possibly Adams. From 1800 on, developments have “turned the elaborate machinery of the electoral college into little more than a way of counting votes” (Dahl, 79). In addition, the several occasions in which a candidate has won the presidency without a majority (or even lost with one), seem to imply that the electoral college is not only undemocratic, but in a sense, illogical. For these reasons, I feel that the college should be abolished.

Technology has advanced such that votes across the nation can now be counted (in most cases) with speed and accuracy. The president should therefore be democratically elected by popular vote. It is true that this will increase the possibility of voter fraud and corruption, but ensuring free and fair elections is a burden which every democratic society must carry.

It may be pointed out that a popular nation-wide election would probably encourage more candidates to run for the presidential office, and thereby increase the risk of having no candidate receive a majority of the vote. In order to counter this possibility, the ballots could be organized by “preferential voting,” as Dahl makes mention. Under such a system of election, voters would cast their votes for several candidates listed on the ballot in order of their preference. In the case of an election in which no candidate receives a majority, the candidate with the fewest primary votes would be dropped, and the secondary votes from those ballots would be allotted to the respective candidate. This process would continue until a candidate has received a majority.

It may also be countered that, given the political climate of the nation at present, in which several elections have been extremely close, contested elections will be a problem, prompting endless nation-wide recounts. In order to avoid this, a time-table could be set, limiting recounts to a maximum of a few days immediately following an election. If a clear victor still fails to emerge, the election would go, as it does now, to the House of Representatives, but with one critical difference. Rather than each state being allotted a vote, each representative would cast a single vote. In this way, the national population would be more fairly represented (especially given the make-up of the House, which will be detailed later), and the President elected by a qualified deliberative body.