The Senate works exactly as it was envisioned. We know that the framers “envisioned” small states having an equal say because in Federalist 62, James Madison grapples with the undemocratic nature of the Senate but comes to the conclusion that it is an “advantage” that, “No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States”(emphasis mine). No one complained about the disparity of the Senate in 1790 - or, as far as I know, 1890 or 1990, for that matter - because the “imbalance” was literally codified in the founding document (which, incidentally, mentions “democracy” zero times). Today, California, our largest state, makes up around 12 percent of the nation’s population. As many people have already pointed out, the first American census in 1790 found that Virginia, then the most populous state, was home to around 20 percent of the population. It undermines any pretense that we are still a democracy.”īoot’s contention only makes sense if a person is ignorant of the founding bargain between states.
“The Founders,” notes Boot, “never envisioned such an imbalance between power and population. When conservative-turned-progressive Max Boot - the gulf between technocrat interventionist and Constitution-averse leftist isn’t as wide as you imagine - says that “American democracy is broken,” his plan to fix it is to effectively dispense with states. The first is to assert that the Constitution is a work of slave-owning white men who used antiquated and counterproductive ideas that undermine modernity and “democracy.” The second is to argue that we have absolutely no idea what the founders intended, anyway. The anti-constitutionalist’s argument usually has two strands that (illogically) intersect. If the United States is more divided than it ever has been in modern times, as a New York Times reporter recently claimed, we have even less reason to dispense with the mechanisms and institutions that diffuse power and constrain one side of the divide from lording over the other.
It is the core idea of American governance. But the system Silver believes problematic tempers divisions. It’s the point.Įlites like to mock the proles when they point out that we don’t live in a democracy. Nor that Texans can’t compel Rhode Islanders to adopt their gun laws. It is not a serious threat to American democracy that New Yorkers are unable to dictate Oklahoma’s abortion laws. Silver is confusing the inability to coerce others with minoritarianism. Senate seats proportional to population, no Electoral College, less gerrymandering).” “Despite the various, very serious threats to American democracy, things would *mostly* be fine if the balance of elected power more closely reflected the popular will (e.g.