“Why should we change a constitution that has served and continues to serve us well?” (Dahl 2003). This question was deeply challenged in the book, How Democratic Is the American Constitution? by Robert Dahl. In his book, Robert Dahl analyzes the United States Constitution, revealing its potential antidemocratic aspects, and arguing for greater political equality among citizens. Dahl begins his book by defining his intent, to “suggest changes in the way we think about our constitution” (Dahl 2003). He then goes into explaining the historical contexts of the Constitutional Convention during the summer of 1787. The author initiates a central question; “why should we feel bound today by a document produced more than two centuries age by …show more content…
He explains that the most profound violation of human rights, which was permitted by the constitution, was slavery. This violation was ultimately corrected by the implementation of the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments. Dahl additionally references to the sixteenth, seventeenth, nineteenth, and twenty-fourth amendments, demonstrating the point that the democratic revolution continued to make changes to the constitution by eliminating undemocratic features. Formal amendments weren’t the only way to make changes to the constitution; Dahl argues that alterations to political practices and institutions also made a significant …show more content…
According to Article II, Section I of the Constitution, the number of electors in each state will be “equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the state may be entitled in the congress.” Every state has 2 senators (an equal number), which means that states with lower population size are represented the same as states with higher population numbers. Robert Dahl explains this unequal representation as “a situation in which your vote for your representative is counted as one while the vote of a friend in a neighboring town is counted as seventeen” (Dahl 2003). Unequal representation is a “violation” of democracy, completely discounting political equality among all citizens. The author argues that the Electoral College contains additional inherent problems, for example, the fact that the winner of popular votes may not be chosen for President unless they win the electoral votes. He recommends switching our current system to a direct election from the people, thus the popular vote wins. The issue of electoral reform is a continuous debate, and the author strongly encourages public discussion on the