Jeremy Gigena

Dr. Magleby
January 26, 2014

The United States Constitution is widely believed to be a banner of

democracy and equality. However, on closer examination, it may be seen
that the framers of the Constitution possibly had some doubts about the new
form of government they were creating since they were sailing into
uncharted waters. James Madison, a representative from Virginia, was vocal
in expressing his doubts. He noted in the Federalist Papers that he was not
sure the American people could be trusted to run a country, and he was not
alone in his views. Robert A. Dahl, a modern writer, claimed in his book How
Democratic is the American Constitution? that the Constitution did its job of
creating a democratic government, but due to the Framers doubts and the
limits they put on some aspects of democracy, it has become insufficiently
democratic for todays America. Looking at specific aspects of the
Constitution, it is clear that there are a few practices that should be changed
to keep up with the times and to make the running of the government more
democratic.
The first fundamental idea of democracy within the Constitution that
could change to fit modern times is equal representation. Members of the
Constitutional Convention had concerns about this due to the colonists past
government experiences. For example, under the rule of King George III, the
people had no voice in the government, which created a variety of problems,
namely the passing of unjust laws and taxes which led them to revolt. With
the new democratic form of government, it was important to the delegates

Jeremy Gigena
Dr. Magleby
January 26, 2014

from the Thirteen Colonies that the representation the people of the
colonies/states received was equal so that no one had more power than the
other.
At the Constitutional Convention, Madisons plan for representation,
also known as the Virginia Plan, based representation in the legislature of the
national government on population, which seemed appropriate. If a state had
a larger population, then they would have more people that would need to
be represented in the government as opposed to the smaller states that
could be represented with fewer representatives. However, this was unfair to
the states with the lesser population because their voice/political
representation did not have the same political power as the big states. The
Connecticut Compromise, a plan that was created during the Constitutional
Convention, addressed this problem by having only two senators from each
state in the senate, regardless of state size, while the house would have
representatives based on population. Madison viewed this as an unfavorable,
but necessary concession because it gave the bigger states the
representation that would be necessary to accurately convey the voice of the
people, but also give the smaller states equal say so that the bigger states
wouldnt trample them.
Dahl does not find this to be an effective democratic practice for
todays society. At face value, the standard representation for each state in
the senate, a tenant of the Connecticut Compromise, seems to be fair and

Jeremy Gigena
Dr. Magleby
January 26, 2014

equal. In reality, it is far from giving the states equal representation. In fact, it
gives the people of the smaller states far more representation than the large
states because the smaller population has more influence on legislation via
their senator than the larger states. Dahl argued that this is the opposite of
equal representation since the smaller states populations now wielded more
power than the populations of the larger states, which is not equality in
representation.
The second idea fundamental idea of democracy that may need
change is majority rule. Madison and the Framers of the Constitution were
unsure whether a new country could wisely rule itself- they were concerned
with the everyday common man having the fate of the country in his hands
and wanted to prevent the population from making a wrong decision in
whom the leaders of the country would be. Thus, the framers put a limit on
this aspect of democracy by instituting the Electoral College, which
essentially put electors, who dont have to follow the voice of the people in
their voting, in charge of voting for the presidency (amount of electoral votes
varied by state population). The presidency could then be won by a set
number of electoral votes. Madison believed this to be a vital part of the new
Constitution because the will of the people could change on a whim and
jeopardize the future of the country on temporary beliefs or desires.
Dahl claims that majority rule has been lost in within the use of the
Electoral College. An example of this, in the 2000 presidential election,

Jeremy Gigena
Dr. Magleby
January 26, 2014

George W. Bush won the Electoral College and became president. However,
Al Gore had won the popular vote. Dahl considers this a direct violation of the
democratic idea of majority rule, in fact it looked more like a minority rule,
and this wasnt the first time this occurred in American history (Andrew
Jackson lost the 1824 election to John Quincy Adams). Another problem with
the Electoral College is that candidates can win elections without having a
majority (of the popular vote), since they only need a majority of the
electoral votes. This is an outdate practice that was never genuinely needed
and should be changed for todays running of the government.
James Madison and the Framers of the Constitution were wise in their
caution to give the people of a new country too much power without any
checks. But as Robert A. Dahl has pointed out, time has passed and the
people of today are more aware of the political process and it is known that
the people can be trusted. It then seems necessary that there be some
changes made to the Constitution to make it more democratic, which would
then help the government more accurately reflect the voice of the people .

Jeremy Gigena
Dr. Magleby
January 26, 2014

Works Cited
Dahl, Robert A. "2,8." How Democratic Is the American Constitution? New
Haven: Yale UP, 2001. N. pag. Print.
Madison, James. "Federalist Paper No. 10." Editorial. The New York Packet 23
Nov. 1787: n. pag. The Library of Congress. The Library of Congress.
Web. 26 Jan. 2015.
Madison, James. "Federalist Paper No. 51." Editorial. The New York Packet 8 Feb. 1788: n. pag.
The Library of Congress. The Library of Congress. Web. 26 Jan. 2015.