1

Chandler Harley

Poli Sci 2051 003

Melissa Flourney

October 8th, 2024

How Democratic is the American Constitution?

The United States Constitution most of the time considered as a great achievement in

democracy is the basic formal instrument of governance in United States. However, in How

Democratic is the American Constitution? political scientist Robert A. Dahl offers a different

perspective on the Constitution in question its democratic values. Dahl stresses the importance of

the document although it serves as a central pillar, there are some anti-democratic aspects within

that render it incapable of fulfilling the purpose of expressing the popular will. He investigates

several dimensions, including the malapportionment of the Senate, the Electoral College, and the

functional inefficacy of other constitutional systems. By these critiques, Dahl wants to spoil the

myth of democracy that surrounds the American Constitution and inspire the debate over its

reconstruction.

Defining Democracy and the Constitution’s Shortcomings

Dahl introduces his investigation with a question: "How democratic is the American

Constitution?" This question prompts him to explore such constitutional values as political

equality, may and accountability, among other principles of democracy (Dahl 3). In Dahl's

argument, the central proposition is that a democratic system should allow all citizens to be
 2

represented fairly and the government to be for the people. However, Dahl states, the scope of

the U.S. Constitution mis adheres in several major ways.

The first issue Dahl raises is the structure of the U.S. Senate. In his analysis, the Senate is

for its part an appreciation of democracy in the sense that it allocates number of two Senators to

each State irrespective of the number of people in each State which is undemocratic (Dahl 45).

This leads to an awkward situation where a less populated State like Wyoming wields the same

power within the legislature as a more populated one like California. This, Dahl argues, creates a

system whereby the legislative playing field is not level for all citizens. One Legislation enacting

more laws than another is a violation of the equal-handed treatment. Disproportionality in

representation of people in such powers is against the democratic principle of one vote one

person which is essential in a democracy to curbing political imbalances.

The Electoral College and the Election of the President

Among the various criticisms of Dahl, one of the most important critiques is towards the

Electoral College also known as the indirect system of electing the President of the United

States. In Dahl’s explanation, the Electoral College was adopted by the authors of the

Constitution as a way of reconciling between populism and states (Dahl 80). Nonetheless, Dahl

observes that this system has an inherent flaw such that it is possible for a person to become

President without necessarily winning the popular vote which occurred during 2000 and 2016

elections. In these cases, democracy was undermined by the Electoral College in the sense that

most people expected the election results favored a candidate who had garnered the greatest odds

of support.
 3

Dahl notes that the Electoral College enables the votes of individual citizens residing in

smaller states to have disproportionately greater significance in the election than the votes of

citizens living in larger ones. As an instance, a vote cast in Wyoming has more weight in terms of

representation in the Electoral College than a vote in California. Moreover, the emphasis on

battleground states where the election is usually contested and determined also is another factor

that further complicates the democratic process. In Dahl’s words, “The Electoral College

systematically distorts political equality” because of the differences in the distribution of voter

power across people (Dahl 82).

Representation and the Performance of Other Systems

Representation is another important aspect that Dahl treats in his work. He argues that

every democratic system must guarantee every person an equal share of representation. The

author instances how this ideal is not attained in the American system due to the presence of the

Electoral college and unequal representation in the senate. Dahl gives an example of countries

like the United Kingdom and Sweden, which use a parliamentary system of government, where

voters are represented in more political parties due to the use of proportional representation

(Dahl 94).

Dahl points out that the leader of the executive branch in such systems is simply drawn

from the dominating party in the legislature, which brings to power a government whose policies

are more likely to be in line with the public preferences. He, therefore, provides an explanation

as to why such systems have been characterized by less divergence and more efficient

governance. The American model’s adherence to separated functions of governments and their

interdependence, however, frequently finds Congress paralyzed by gridlock, unable to do much

to meet the expectations of the citizenry in a timely manner (Dahl 98). In this way, Dahl, having

pointed to the advantages of the other forms of democracy, asks readers to reflect on the

appropriateness of the U.S. Constitution as it is in place today for promoting democracy.

Rethinking the Constitution

In the conclusive sections of the book, Dahl provokes the readers into changing their

attitude towards the US Constitution. The Constitution is often revered as a holy relic among

Americans. Dahl, however, would like to present the other side of the coin, to undertake a more

analytical scrutiny of the same. He suggests that while the framers were revolutionaries in their

own right, they could not have envisaged the complexity of democratic governance in present

day (Dahl 109). It is also observed by Dahl that the very challenge that is presented by

constitutional amendments exceeds its democratic deficiency in that while internal changes are

necessary, they are often very difficult to execute.

As it is for instance, attempts to get rid of the Electoral College or to tweak the make-up

of the Senate in terms of the representation have not gone far even with the fact that there is such

consideration among the general public. This is true even within the original intent of the

architects of the Constitution: they expect that someday, future generations will enact laws that

will improve the coverage of the Constitution. Usually by reformist bankruptcy waves, Dahl's

utopia exactly implies the sustainability of constitutional changes. That is, it has performed its

functions successfully in the course of time. However, the loss of hope for the transformation of

the Constitution as such cannot be seen as healthy.

Conclusion
 5

Robert A. Dahl’s How Democratic is the American Constitution? provides a detailed

critique of the United States Constitution and questions its universally admired democratic

nature. Both exposing the undemocratic practices such as the disproportionate representation in

the Senate, the existence of the Electoral College, and the difficulties in changing the

Constitution itself, Dahl demonstrates that there are defects in the Constitutions structure. The

questions his critique raises are the extent to which the American government is truly

representative of its people and what changes to the present system would be required for an

effective fulfillment of the democratic role of the government. In the end, it is an invitation to

every, single, American citizen to weigh their political system and how it can be enhanced to

represent democracy in this 21st century.

(WC-1200)

References

Dahl, Robert A. How Democratic Is the American Constitution? Yale University Press, 2001.

Levinson, Sanford. Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And

How We the People Can Correct It). Oxford University Press, 2006.