Rachel Krawczyk

Short Essay

Our System is Unique

Before reading this book I thought the Constitution had no flaws and after all the amendments
they had made, it was made as good as it was going to get. I was unaware of a lot of things with
in the constitution but Robert Dahls book was a bit of wakeup call for me.
Robert Dahl makes many valid points while trying to prove his thesis. Robert Dahls thesis is
that the American Constitution itself has many flaws and faults that are not working to make our
government the best it could possibly be and should be revised to make it be more useful for our
government. The title of this book is How Democratic is the American Constitution? His thesis
and the title are directly correlated with each other. Since his thesis is telling us how much our
constitution doesnt work for our government and we have a democratic government. So he is
explaining how our constitution doesnt work for a democratic government. He does this by
breaking down major parts in the constitution, a majority of the ones that dont represent
democracy.
He has quite a few topics that he feels are the most important and I will state a few within this
paper. One thing he disagrees with more than anything is the Electoral College. His words under
the heading Failure state No part of the constitution revealed the flaws in its design more
quickly than the provision of the Electoral College. (pg 77) These words explain perfectly how
he feels about the Electoral College. He thinks it was a mistake, he makes such a valid argument
I even begin to agree with him. He brought up the fact that even the candidate with the greatest
number of popular votes, might not receive a majority of electoral votes and thus might fail to be

chosen as president. (pg 79) He also brings up First past the post which is the way the US
elects congress, I myself was completely unaware of. Another large thing he covers is unequal
representation in the Senate. He states I fear constitutional reformers would be unable to change
the gross inequality in representation resulting from the fixed allocation of two senators for each
state without regard to population. (pg 144) for there he continues to explain how the Senate is
unfairly represented because the small states with smaller populations get the same amount of
votes as those of larger states with twice the population. Which I agree that its unfair it should
be based off of population because it does not make sense that those with less population in turn
get the same as those of more. And he does not feel confident that it will ever change because he
says The likelihood of reducing the extreme inequality of representation in the Senate is
virtually zero. (pg 154). Which is true our government really isnt up for a lot of drastic change
once they get used to something even if it is a poor system. He also points out the Supreme Court
is not elected they are just chosen and they are one of the higher powers in our government and
we get no say in who they are. This is not the only time that he brings up the Supreme Court, he
also talks about them in the Unwritten Constitution he starts off by saying that many
Americans dont know that there is no such judicial veto provision explicitly exists in the
written American Constitution. (pg 167). What this is pretty much saying is the Supreme Court
gave themselves the power that they technically dont have. Every big point he brings up is valid
with a lot of supporting data which makes it easy to agree.
This book has changed a lot of my views on the American Constitution, I shouldnt just say
changed but also showed me many things that I was unaware of. And I have come to realize that
our system is unique. (pg 43). To begin with the Electoral College, I had no clue how it worked
or what it did. I just thought that the more popular person wins the votes and becomes president,

but come to find out, I am so wrong. I was so unaware that the person who rightful deserves to
be president and the one that all the people want, in most cases wont become president. Another
thing that completely shocked me was the Supreme Court. I was blown away by the fact that the
Supreme Court itself technically doesnt have power but we just go along with it because its in
the unwritten Constitution. That topic still doesnt completely make sense to me, if they dont
have a section in the Constitution giving them power, why do we give it to them.
This book as a whole I believe to not be a bad book. Its very enlightening to read. Robert Dahl
himself is a very opinionated man that is not afraid to tell you how he feels about Americas
government. His book was intriguing but also brought up many valid points in the Constitution
that should be revised. Not only did he tell you main points that needed changing but he gave
you very good supporting evidence. That was probably my favorite part of the book because I am
the type of person that needs evidence if you want me to believe or agree with you. The fact that
he also put some personality and voice into the book made it easier to read, I think you should
use this book again for your class. In the end Robert Dahl did sway me to believe that major key
points in the constitution did need editing.
In conclusion, the constitution isnt very democratic do to many points that Dahl brings up
throughout and it does need to be changed. But the fact is that most likely none of things that
Dahl stated will be changed because people dont like change.