IS THE CONSTITUTION REFORM PROOF?

On the face of it, the question seems absurd. There are 27 amendments to the Constitution. But when we look closely we see 10 were passed almost immediately... prohibition negates itself leaving 15... and none really deal with the anti-democratic nature of our federalist system. They either tweak it or finally grant rights to those the Framers should have never denied them to. That job is STILL not finished.

The amendment process now requires 38 states to ratify any amendment. The Framers in all their wisdom failed to include any protection against demographic trends. 12 states... regardless of their population can now block any amendment. According to the 2000 Census the 12 smallest states by population contain 4.501% of the total population. In 1990 they had a whopping 4.675%. At this rate in perhaps 50 years these 12 smallest states will be down to a mere 3.5% of the US population.

By having a state-based ratification process instead of one based upon a percentage of the total US population the Framers gave a dwindling minority increasing power to thwart any and all reform.

So isn't it about time this became a political issue? What would a rational amendment process look like?

Source: http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t2.html

the amendment process would be via an amendment, and as you point out, the small states would object. The Electoral College will probably never go away for the same reason.

Then the way to go is to target the amendment process before going after the EC.

If the 2 parties are so cowardly that they can't take on this issue... then there's no hope for any serious reform of this nation's anti-democratic government. Another example.... currently 15% of the US population gets 50% of the Senate seats. Soon that will be 10%.

majoritarian democracy (where the majority's will rules) by a mere constitutional convention. The participants could "reform" the country into a dictatorship legally if they chose.

The Founders of this country and the drafters of the Constitution designed the document to permit their descendents to discontinue their noble experiment should that be their choice. But they believed that the democratic principles would endure and the possibility of abolishing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the Amendments would be theoretical and not likely.

I've already given the figures on the amendment process.

Candidate's who fail to get a majority of the presidential vote are routinely imposed upon the nation by an unaccountable star chamber called the EC.

50% of the Senate represents a mere 15% of the population.

Together a minority president and Senate can pack the federal judiciary with Right wing Neanderthals or enter the US into international treaties.

The House is not reflective of the population. Up to 50% of the people are denied representation in our winner take all elections. Gerrymandering can give a party 70% of the seats with 50% of the vote.

We've all been brought up to understand WHY the Framers devised the Constitution we have. We've not been brought up to critique it. So we live in this political haze pretending we have a democratic government. Election 2000 proved that the world's only superpower is not even under the control of its own citizens. We really do need to strip off the blinders and face this issue head on.

when unchecked. In a democracy, 50% +1 vote decides the issue. In a true democracy there would be no first amendmendt to protect minority opinion. Be careful what you wish for.

So minority government is your solution to majority rule? Interesting!

Actually your objection is the classic red herring that never dies.

There's no reason why you can't have the moral legitimacy of majority rule with protections for legitimate minority interests. In fact I'd prefer that small state interests be protected by the Bill of Rights approach rather than granting some citizens more power and privilege at the expense of other citizens.

I happen to believe that the bedrock of democracy is all votes weigh the same. Don't you?

He meant that the very important issues should be decided by more than 50.1% versus 49.9%. I would tend to agree.

It doesn't take much imagination to realize that we can have a system that protects the concept of majority rule AND yet blocks the majority from running amok.

In the US we have a schizoid approach to this issue. The Framers created a system that gives special powers to SOME citizens based on state residence at the expense of others. This system can give us minority rule on occasion. That SHOULD scare us all.... but apparently it doesn't.

But the states as a condition of ratification insisted on a Bill of Rights which uses legal measure to block the majority. Clearly this system is preferable to protecting small states than the civic inequality used in the first approach. Why should ONE citizen who chooses to live in Wyoming have a 3.5x heavier vote for president than a citizen who chooses to live in California? What is the moral justification for SOME citizens to be granted such power to protect their interests and not others? Why not racial minorities? Gays? Women?

In the US all belief in democratic principles has been replaced with Founder worship. We're brought up to understand and validate what happened back in 1787, to gloss over the deep flaws in the system even if, as 2000 proved, the entire course of US and world history can be changed WITHOUT the consent of the American People.

that you are talking about a two-party state. The real problem here is not the electoral college, or the constitution or anything (although there are a fair number of problems there). The real problem is the ossification of the two big party machines. The Framers didn't specify a two-party system. You need a third party, at least.

Unless we face this... there will never be reform.

The REAL reason third parties don't stand a chance is not just because the of two parties... even though they have behaved despicably. The problem is our political and voting system.

The two party system is an unintended outgrowth of the imperatives and dynamics built into the system. The Constitution set in cement the politics and antiquated political theories of 1787. Yes, there's some strengths to the Constitution but we gloss over its deep flaws. We have lost sight of the ideals that were compromised away at the Constitutional Convention and ignore the progress other democracies have made in the past 230 years.

Under our single district/state election system political minorities can never win any election even of they make up a sizable minority nationally. Because we have plurality elections, a divided majority can lose to a united minority. Such dynamics continually hand victories to one of the two parties and sabotage the growth of third parties. The two parties play hardball because they'd rather game a dysfunctional system than dare question it. This has all the hallmarks of secular religion. In fact the two party system, as any organization, filters out those who think outside the proverbial box.

Yet the trend is clear.... the system can't provide morally legitimate government and it's getting more and more anti-democratic and reform proof. This SHOULD scare the hell out of all of us... but it's clear that most Democrats like their Party, lack any commitment to basic democratic principles.

None of this will change on the federal level without reforming the Constitution. But those in favor of such reforms must be in for 50 year battle. I think the place to start is bringing democratic principles to state government... that plus trying to reform the amendment process. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1316860

single transferable vote?

Since I believe each citizen's vote to be of equal weight I'm opposed to all vote weighing schemes... and US federalism is rife with them. Such schemes are illegal on all OTHER levels of government. Since I believe that all citizens should be able to vote their conscience and be represented on some level of government I generally favor proportional representation.

How do these principles play out?

I'd like to see the Senate turned into a national parliament based upon national party elections. It would end the vote weighing that gives some citizens 38X more influence than others. It's also a sure way to finally get a few third party seats.

I'm still debating about the House. I believe in representation for regional interests but the current system is clearly broken. Multi-district elections might be the answer. It would greatly reduce Gerrymandering and increase the possibility of third parties getting seats.

For President I believe the EC must be abolished and we must move to a popular vote.

I'd like to see the amendment process based upon a percentage of the US population... not a percentage of states of unequal size. I'd also like to see ratification done by the people, not the states. I, too, fear, popular passion... I think the problem can be dealt with by having amendment referendums as part of the voting process. Maybe amendments would have to be approved over 2-3 election cycles. I'd like to see broad support from the population so maybe 66% of the vote or 50% of the voting age population. I think details can be worked out because any system is better than a super tiny minority having the ability to obstruct common sense reforms.

Democracy is not a good form of government because it will run roughshod over minority opinion and indeed supress it. Republican systems of government can give the majority a large say, but deny it absoulute power. The Bill of Rights makes that explicit - it limits the power of the government to deny a voice to minority opinion and also to oppress minority opinion through legal strategems.

Show me an example of a democracy that survived long and didn't oppress minority viewpoints and I'll eat my hat.

I don't see anyone here advocating pure majority rule. So can we get past this red herring?

The issue you are avoiding in your rush to protect us from a majority run amok is your acceptance of MINORITY rule.

Clearly there are ways to protect us against both... and the Constitution fails that test.

Bill never won a majority in two elections. He won a plurality.

Even though at the time I thought Clinton was bringing an end to the Reagan Dark Ages... I have a problem with plurality voting. Clinton only got about 43% of the vote.

I believe we need to have a run-off provision. It's sickening to have the worlds only superpower be subject to the whims of an unaccountable Star Chamber called the EC which imposed the Bush Junta on the nation.

Surely a simple run-off provision would have made clear that the majority of those who voted wanted someone LEFT of Bush. But under our dysfunctional system.... a united minority can rule a divided majority.

the problems encountered in Ohio seem to be racially motivated at the onset. Why no one has summoned a federal grand jury to investigate civil rights violations is a mystery to me.

Then maybe an amendment guaranteeing every American equal access verifiable voting would be nice

The problem with thinking the problem is vote count accuracy is in our system you can have 100% voting age participation... 100% vote count accuracy... even 100% public financing of elections... and a president repudiated by the People can still be imposed on the nation.

At some point we MUST look at the anti-democratic nature of our voting/political system.

If you haven't noticed, our entire system has built in roadblocks to stop drastic changes. And thank God for them. Otherwise, Bush would have declared us a Christian country, eliminated social security and turned Mexico into a prison camp by now.

You can have friction and roadblocks WITHOUT risking minority rule. Why is this SO difficult for intelligent people to understand?

So say we reformed the amendment process... how can it prevent a super-super minority from obstructing it while not giving into popular passion?

It's not that hard to devise a system to accomplish both. The ratification process can require 66% of the nation's popular vote over 2 election cycles. How about 50% of the voting age population? Routinely 50% of citizens sit out elections. Is not the base of moral legitimacy a percentage of the citizenry not just those who vote? Maybe we need incentives to drive up our pathetic voting numbers.

Common, you can be creative if you just strip off the blinders of historical apologetics.

No parental rights for homosexuals? Amendment.
State-sponsored prayer in schools? Amendment.
Anti flag burning? Amendment.

You're defending an anti-democratic system that permits MINORITY rule and permits a super small minority to block all progressive change and claiming that it can better protect us against a minority agenda? What's really scary is you're serious.

I think your ideological blinders are on so tight they are preventing you from confronting your own contradictions.

As I said in my last post we can have friction and roadblocks in government WITHOUT risking minority rule. We can reform the amendment process so it prevents a super-super minority from obstructing progress WITHOUT giving into popular passion.

But I'm from West Virginia, which might explain that fear.

theboss wrote: "I fear majority rule.... But I'm from West Virginia, which might explain that fear."

We citizens have multiple attributes. State residence is but one. Yet we're raised to believe that it's still as key an attribute and it was in 1787. It's not.

So what's the moral justification for SOME citizens being granted special powers for one attribute and not others? Why has this avenue been shut off to other minorities who fear the majority? What about racial minorities? Gays? Women? The Rich? Obviously because it would become unworkable.

The Framers could have come up with a better solution to this problem but the politics of the time didn't allow it. In the Bill of Rights, minority rights were protected by law... not by granting some citizens extra power in government. I believe this is a better way to deal with any legitimate concerns the small states have. Why? Simply because under our current system, the small states can still be outvoted while the Bill Of Rights approach is a more enduring way to protect rights.

There's nothing today but our ideological blinders that's stopping us from rethinking Constitution especially since there ARE ways to protect those in small states WITHOUT risking morally illegitimate minority government.

that "progressives" and those who support "progressive" reforms are a majority in this nation. It seems to me that that is a dangerous and baseless assumption. There will NEVER be "progressive change" under a majority rule system. Progressive change is ALWAYS initially pushed by a vocal and often unpopular (but Constitutionally protected) minority. My God, you think that a majority WANTS progress? The times in history (human history, not American history) when that was the case can perhaps be counted on one's fingers.

You want real majority rule? Then either you are not particularly progressive or are deluded about what an American majority may do, given free reign.

In any case, there is no workable mechanism by which to do what you propose.

I agree with people like Noam Chomsky that the basic instincts of the majority of the American People are liberal. Yet there is some pathology at work that makes the US both a overly religious and imperial nation while other advanced democracies are content to provide their citizens health care. I honestly believe that the problem is that our political system can not effectively respond to the sentiments of the People. So when it comes to elections routinely 50% of the voting age population sits on the side lines. Since I value democratic principles I want to see incorporated in government some basic values... all votes weigh the same, a citizen has a right to vote their conscience and be sure of some representation for those beliefs.... there should NEVER be minority rule... a citizen has a right to vote their conscience without throwing an election to a spoiler. Our federal system delivers NONE of these common sense aspects of democracy.

I also believe the above, as dysfunctional as it is, is held together by an incredibly effective indoctrination system. We have been brought up to accept the Orwellian contradiction that our anti-democratic system is democracy... that all questions on morally legitimate government were dealt with back in 1787 and we need not think about such issues any more. It has all the hallmarks of a secular religion. Liberals and probably most Progressives have a difficult time thinking outside this box. To listen to their objections here it's pretty easy to devise a system that does all they claim they want... WITHOUT being anti-democratic. That they STILL reject such suggestions is a key indication that there are some deep contradictions they do not want to face. That's why I believe the path to political sanity starts with a reexamination of core values... which is why I've proposed the Think Tank project here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2744460

ulTrax,

Why do you assume that once your "reforms" of the Constitution are in place, that the changes that would be enacted in your new democracy would be "progressive?" You refer to the "red herring" of democratic mob rule, but why is it a red herring??

The Bill of Rights wouldn't serve as a shield against abuse in a "true" democracy, because, even though in your system a super majority of sorts might be required to amend, a simple majority could (would?) elect members of the executive and legislative branches that promise to ignore it. I believe it was Andrew Jackson who noted the fact that the Supreme Court's army is rather puny. The Bill of Rights only limits the government (and private citizens by one amendment) because the "government" obeys the Supreme Court. (I suppose a lot of DUers aren't old enough to remember the suspense that existed in the time between the Supreme Court's ruling on the Nixon tapes and Nixon's response. Just what would have happened if he had refused? Even Nixon knew better...I'm not so sure the present crop of fascists would be so deferential.)

Bottom line--in your system, the majority would CONTROL the manner and degree to which the rights of the minority are protected. Which means they really wouldn't be "rights" at all would they?

Confrontationclaws wrote: "It's not a red herring. Why do you assume that once your "reforms" of the Constitution are in place, that the changes that would be enacted in your new democracy would be "progressive?" You refer to the "red herring" of democratic mob rule, but why is it a red herring??"

It's a red herring because this is one of the historic strawmen used by those who refuse to see our systems faults. That and the old saying we're a republic not a democracy. They SOUND like arguments but it's only a lame attempt to defend and validate the system we have without actually looking any deeper. Americans are blind to the fact that the world is FULL of alternative models that prove it's possible to protect minority rights and still have majority rule. We in the US are deluded thinking our Constitution is a model for the rest of the world. Some 66% of Americans believe that.

Confrontationclaws wrote: "The Bill of Rights wouldn't serve as a shield against abuse in a "true" democracy, because, even though in your system a super majority of sorts might be required to amend, a simple majority could (would?) elect members of the executive and legislative branches that promise to ignore it."................. "Bottom line--in your system, the majority would CONTROL the manner and degree to which the rights of the minority are protected. Which means they really wouldn't be "rights" at all would they?"

And why can't that happen now? In fact under our system those representatives (house and senate) can represent a MINORITY of the population... as can the President. This is your idea of protection? A minority President and Senate can pack the federal judiciary. Any of this sinking in? As for the current system providing some magic bullet to protect rights... we have a 9th amendment which is a radical statement of human rights and it's being universally ignored. Strict constructionists like Scalia dismiss it as irrelevant.

The current system is the worst of both worlds. It allows minority rule and blocks common sense democratic reforms. Under our system there is no civic equality, citizens can't vote their conscience and get some representation, up to 50% of citizens are routinely denied representation in voting for losers in winner take all elections... the two parties have a stranglehold on the system yet they are not responsive to the public. My god... you're defending this? BTW... I would not rush to making the amendment process more flexible without laying a new ideological foundation in liberal democracy. I see this as a 50 year process best started in the states. Some ideas here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1316860

Confrontationclaws wrote: "I believe it was Andrew Jackson who noted the fact that the Supreme Court's army is rather puny. The Bill of Rights only limits the government (and private citizens by one amendment) because the "government" obeys the Supreme Court. (I suppose a lot of DUers aren't old enough to remember the suspense that existed in the time between the Supreme Court's ruling on the Nixon tapes and Nixon's response. Just what would have happened if he had refused? Even Nixon knew better...I'm not so sure the present crop of fascists would be so deferential.)"

Maybe the REAL issue here is that the office of the President is too powerful. But you've already taken basic reforms off the table. But I agree that a respect for law is powerful cement holding the system together. Unfortunately in the US we're stuck having more respect for bad law than good principles.

At some point Democrats and Progressives have to have some commitment to democratic principles because the cost of anti-democratic government is too high and may be the basis for our imperial pathology and inability to provide Americans will basics like health care.

The currents of anti-democratic rule are unpredictable, insidious, and make a mockery of self governance. Clarence Thomas was approved by senators representing a MINORITY of the US population. In 2000... he becomes a key vote in preventing the Florida recount. Bush is repudiated by the voters yet imposed upon the nation by an anti-democratic star chamber called the EC. Bush is able to abuse the powers of his office to sweep in a GOP Senate... and further solidified power in 2004. US and world history was changed for the worst and who's responsible? Your system has but the illusion of accountability but in reality it strips from the People the ability to learn from their own mistakes. Combine that with how unresponsive the 2 party system is and it's no wonder why most Americans, unlike most in the other advanced democracies, don't take self-government seriously. And one further note... that if the citizens are blocked from governing their own nation... you can be certain something will fill that vacuum. In the US it's special interests.

I should also mention that third and fourth parties don't stand a chance under our system. I'm sure this doesn't bother those locked into the two party system mindset. At best they ignore how dysfunctional the system is.... at worst they are, at times, so arrogant they actually believe they are owed the votes of citizens who want to vote their conscience. We saw this with so many Dems bashing the Naderites.

Yet to those who DO want a political system that allows them to vote their conscience and be guaranteed representation WITHOUT supporting a so-called "spoiler" know that the only way to have this occur on a national level is though Constitutional reform.

Obviously, there's many people here who fear making these changes. Otherwise, you wouldn't be hitting the resistance you currently are seeing. Until Americans stop clinging to the age-old strawman argument that making the system more democratic is going to automatically equate to mob rule everytime its mentioned, they will not seriously think over the issue.

I don't see how issues such as flag burning or gay marriage can't be protected in a majoritarian democratic model. The Bill of Rights is there precisely to protect people from not just the government but also from mob rule. The rest of the system can be revised to make it more democratic but not to the point where we sacrifice minority rights. We must strike a balance.

For instance, to modify the 1st Amendment to ban flag burning could require a 60% majority to pass or even a 2/3rds majority. We're not talking about amending constitutions all the time with a simple 50% + 1 vote rule here. That's an obvious strawman.

I'm all for your ideas, but it's probably going to take a fucking lifetime to convince America to go along with it and then see the American people force government to change.

Selatius wrote: "America is apparently not ready for a majoritarian rep. democracy. Obviously, there's many people here who fear making these changes. Otherwise, you wouldn't be hitting the resistance you currently are seeing. Until Americans stop clinging to the age-old strawman argument that making the system more democratic is going to automatically equate to mob rule every time its mentioned, they will not seriously think over the issue."

One might expect resistance from the Right who almost by definition are mired in historical apologetics. But when it comes to a rational discussion on how to improve Constitution... even most on the Left are equally irrational.

I believe we all have a hierarchy of vaules... which is not to say each is articulated. Sometimes avoidance is valued. When I see people on the Left run from common sense democratic principle in favor of Founder worship... I can only marvel at how effective the indoctrination system is here in the US. Then I fear for our future.

True Progressives need a 50 year plan to push an anti-democratic Democratic Party to finally support bringing democracy to America. Given the legal and ideological obstacles... 50 years may be optimistic.

I wrote: "The amendment process now requires 38 states to ratify any amendment. The Framers in all their wisdom failed to include any protection against demographic trends. 12 states... regardless of their population can now block any amendment. According to the 2000 Census the 12 smallest states by population contain 4.501% of the total population. In 1990 they had a whopping 4.675%. At this rate in perhaps 50 years these 12 smallest states will be down to a mere 3.5% of the US population."

I did the math using the 1970 Census and if correct at that time the population of the 12 smallest states was 3.822% of the total US population.