Available:*
Library | Material Type | Shelf Number | Child Count | Shelf Location | Status | Item Holds |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Searching... Science | Book | 342.7302 D137H 2002 | 1 | Stacks | Searching... Unknown | Searching... Unavailable |
Searching... Science | Book | KF4550 .D34 2002 | 1 | Stacks | Searching... Unknown | Searching... Unavailable |
Searching... Science | Book | 342.73 D137H | 1 | Stacks | Searching... Unknown | Searching... Unavailable |
Bound With These Titles
On Order
Summary
Summary
In this provocative book, an eminent political scientist poses the question: "Why should we uphold our constitution?"
Reviews (2)
Publisher's Weekly Review
In this slim, accessible volume, Yale political science professor emeritus Dahl (On Democracy) takes a critical look at our Constitution and why we continue to uphold it, though it is "a document produced more than two centuries ago by a group of fifty-five mortal men, actually signed by only thirty-nine and adopted in only thirteen states." As an instrument for truly democratic government, Dahl argues, it fails. With insufficient models to guide them and a distrust of unfettered democracy, the Framers allowed several "undemocratic elements" in: slavery was accepted and suffrage effectively limited to white men. But Dahl saves his most potent criticism for two provisions that have remained unchanged: the electoral college and the Senate, both of which tie votes to geography rather than population, thereby skewing political power toward coalitions of smaller states whose interests may not necessarily coincide with the nation's as a whole. And as the 2000 presidential election illustrated, the electoral college can frustrate the will of the majority. Perhaps the most enlightening aspect of Dahl's critique is his comparison of our system with those of other stable democracies. In his view, countries with proportional representation which typically results in multi-party states and coalition governments offer a purer form of democratic equality, while our structure frequently supports, for example, policies beneficial to the most powerful lobbyists, rather than the greatest number of citizens. This book originated as a series of lectures at Yale and, as a result, the argument is abbreviated and clear. While Dahl concedes that he has occasionally oversimplified, his intention is not to write a political treatise but to encourage American citizens to change, if not the Constitution, then at least "the way we think about it" and at that, he should have success. (Mar. 19) (c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved
Choice Review
Dahl (emer., Yale Univ.) probably is the US's leading scholar of democratic theory. Democratic values are at the core of his many articles and books--most recently Democracy and Its Critics (1991) and On Democracy (CH, Jul'99). Had Dahl participated in the Constitutional ratification process more than 200 years ago, he probably would have done so as an anti-Federalist. For many anti-Federalists, the proposed Constitution was not sufficiently majoritarian--in that only members of the House of Representatives were directly elected by the people. As it was for the anti-Federalists of an earlier time, this is Dahl's major criticism: "The American constitutional system," he writes " is not majoritarian" and, therefore, not sufficiently democratic. What Dahl wants is "a constitutional system better designed to achieve such democratic goals as the protection of fundamental rights, fair representation, and greater consensus...." This is a lively and challenging volume for those who still think of the Constitution as sacred text. Highly recommended at all levels. E. C. Dreyer emeritus, University of Tulsa