This is an excellent overview of how our constitutional system got to where we are, and an equally strong overview of options for getting us out of its current mess, without sacrificing democracy.
“I am sure you have heard all the standard objections to your arguments. I would start with Representation. Your “representing everyone in the polity” argument is appealing logically, but historically and structurally it is not the representative system we have – your conception is more like the British institution of representation. There is a reason, like it or not, why Members of Congress have to live in their districts – it is those folks the Members represent.
And, although you acknowledge the constitutional protections for minorities in the Constitution, your argument seems to ignore that they are not accidental, but carefully designed to prevent what the Framers thought would be the Tyranny of the Majority (and the political precarity of minority groups and small states). It has not worked out so well, we would both agree, but since the Framers also designed an Amendment system that is ordinarily (and always in times of severe political difference) close to impossible to utilize, we are trapped in a dysfunctional constitutional system, which makes constitutional hardball possible. So while I love your proposals, I do not believe they could be put into place.
On the other hand, your political analysis gives me some real hope that Trump might lose the election, and in the Real World, that will make all the difference.”
Sam, thanks for an excellent and thorough essay on this critical topic. Another issue that needs addressing is campaign finance reform. Hope you will consider that in future essays.
This is an excellent overview of how our constitutional system got to where we are, and an equally strong overview of options for getting us out of its current mess, without sacrificing democracy.
Reader S.K. emailed the followikg comment:
“I am sure you have heard all the standard objections to your arguments. I would start with Representation. Your “representing everyone in the polity” argument is appealing logically, but historically and structurally it is not the representative system we have – your conception is more like the British institution of representation. There is a reason, like it or not, why Members of Congress have to live in their districts – it is those folks the Members represent.
And, although you acknowledge the constitutional protections for minorities in the Constitution, your argument seems to ignore that they are not accidental, but carefully designed to prevent what the Framers thought would be the Tyranny of the Majority (and the political precarity of minority groups and small states). It has not worked out so well, we would both agree, but since the Framers also designed an Amendment system that is ordinarily (and always in times of severe political difference) close to impossible to utilize, we are trapped in a dysfunctional constitutional system, which makes constitutional hardball possible. So while I love your proposals, I do not believe they could be put into place.
On the other hand, your political analysis gives me some real hope that Trump might lose the election, and in the Real World, that will make all the difference.”
Sam, thanks for an excellent and thorough essay on this critical topic. Another issue that needs addressing is campaign finance reform. Hope you will consider that in future essays.
For a neuropolitical perspective:
https://meyerja.substack.com/p/a-measure-of-democracy