What do you think?
Rate this book
Castle Lecture Series
Partisan Hearts and Minds
In this authoritative study, three political scientists demonstrate that identification with political parties powerfully determines how citizens look at politics and cast their ballots.
" Partisan Hearts and Minds is a profound breakthrough in our understanding of partisan loyalties and makes a major contribution to the study of political attitudes and voting behavior."―Paul Abramson, Michigan State University
"This book will be influential the moment it appears. It will be the starting point for all further treatments of the topic."―Richard Johnston, University of British Columbia
"The grounding of partisanship in social identities is the most important theoretical contribution to the study of partisanship in the last two decades."―Morris P. Fiorina, Stanford University
" Partisan Hearts and Minds is a profound breakthrough in our understanding of partisan loyalties and makes a major contribution to the study of political attitudes and voting behavior."―Paul Abramson, Michigan State University
"This book will be influential the moment it appears. It will be the starting point for all further treatments of the topic."―Richard Johnston, University of British Columbia
"The grounding of partisanship in social identities is the most important theoretical contribution to the study of partisanship in the last two decades."―Morris P. Fiorina, Stanford University
266 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
69 people are currently reading
916 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 79 reviews
July 11, 2010
The popularly held myth that the American Constitution is the beacon of global democracy blatantly disregards democratic norms in several instances. Robert Dahl, a Sterling Professor Emeritus of Yale University and former President of the American Political Science Association, examines the ways in which the Constitution does not practice equality of representation. Most notably, both the Senate and the Electoral College distort the value of votes, resulting in votes from Wyoming worth four times that of votes in California. Dahl discusses alternative systems of representation and presents viable solutions to making the United States a stronger democracy.
Response:
One of the primary strengths of Dahl's book, its accessibility, also produces a consistent lack of depth throughout the book. For example, Dahl summarizes the debate between parliamentary and presidential systems for new democracies in only a few pages. Any student of electoral systems will desperately want more depth. However, an academic review of the literature on systems of representation would undoubtedly bore many to tears. In other words, the book's briefness provides accessibility that may be more important than an irrefutable review of the vast work already done on these topics. His book lacks in depth and his specific arguments suffer because of it. However, his primary point that the Constitution is not as democratic as popular opinion claims is supported effectively.
While Dahl does discuss the Senate and the Electoral College at length, he does not address major counterarguments in support of these institutions. For example, popular vote by majority at a national scale creates a highly inefficient voting system, resulting in a greater probability of human error. Recounts also become highly problematic at a national scale. Dahl simply does not address these issues. While he does effectively argue against the fear of majority rule and provide substantial evidence that many of the Framers recanted their positions against majority rule after the implementation of the Constitution, other counterarguments go unaddressed.
Unfortunately, Dahl's third primary critique of the current American political system, the Supreme Court, receives a cursory examination. Dahl contends that the Supreme Court's ability to essentially legislate through judicial review gives it undeserved power that should be left to the legislature. Dahl does not mention that the Justices to the Supreme Court are held indirectly accountable to the electorate through nomination by the President and approval of Congress. Instead of providing an analysis on whether or not this indirect accountability to the electorate is effective, he simply ignores it.
Bottom Line:
This book should be required reading for every college freshman. If you cannot readily list several ways that the Constitution is not democratic and why, put this book at the top of your reading list. Keep in mind that this book is an incredibly brief overview of complex topics that do not lend themselves to easy solutions through policy and that Dahl clearly advocates for certain policy prescriptions. His prescriptions may not be ideal and should not be adopted without an extensive review of the full range of literature.
For more reviews and a summary of Dahl's main points, find us at Hand of Reason.
Response:
One of the primary strengths of Dahl's book, its accessibility, also produces a consistent lack of depth throughout the book. For example, Dahl summarizes the debate between parliamentary and presidential systems for new democracies in only a few pages. Any student of electoral systems will desperately want more depth. However, an academic review of the literature on systems of representation would undoubtedly bore many to tears. In other words, the book's briefness provides accessibility that may be more important than an irrefutable review of the vast work already done on these topics. His book lacks in depth and his specific arguments suffer because of it. However, his primary point that the Constitution is not as democratic as popular opinion claims is supported effectively.
While Dahl does discuss the Senate and the Electoral College at length, he does not address major counterarguments in support of these institutions. For example, popular vote by majority at a national scale creates a highly inefficient voting system, resulting in a greater probability of human error. Recounts also become highly problematic at a national scale. Dahl simply does not address these issues. While he does effectively argue against the fear of majority rule and provide substantial evidence that many of the Framers recanted their positions against majority rule after the implementation of the Constitution, other counterarguments go unaddressed.
Unfortunately, Dahl's third primary critique of the current American political system, the Supreme Court, receives a cursory examination. Dahl contends that the Supreme Court's ability to essentially legislate through judicial review gives it undeserved power that should be left to the legislature. Dahl does not mention that the Justices to the Supreme Court are held indirectly accountable to the electorate through nomination by the President and approval of Congress. Instead of providing an analysis on whether or not this indirect accountability to the electorate is effective, he simply ignores it.
Bottom Line:
This book should be required reading for every college freshman. If you cannot readily list several ways that the Constitution is not democratic and why, put this book at the top of your reading list. Keep in mind that this book is an incredibly brief overview of complex topics that do not lend themselves to easy solutions through policy and that Dahl clearly advocates for certain policy prescriptions. His prescriptions may not be ideal and should not be adopted without an extensive review of the full range of literature.
For more reviews and a summary of Dahl's main points, find us at Hand of Reason.
December 22, 2013
One of my favorite books of all time and one that ought to be required reading in all high schools, not just universities. I won't be original in saying that the answer to the title question is "not very," but that is the point. Americans are generally taught to believe (or at least not question) the thesis that our Constitution creates the ideal form of government and a model of democracy for all the world to follow. There is nothing unpatriotic about making the observation that this simply isn't true.
Dahl compares the U.S. Constitution to the political systems used in all of the nations that have had a stable form of democratic government for at least 50 years (you'd perhaps be surprised at some of the well-known countries that rules out). By comparison, the American form of government does a very poor job of representing the will of the people and includes numerous mechanisms that allow very small minorities to thwart the will of the majority in their own self-interest. The Electoral College is probably the best-known example, insofar as it makes candidates pander to the interests of "swing states" and allows the President to be someone for whom the majority of the population didn't vote. To give just one example from the book (p. 50), California and Wyoming each have two U.S. Senators, even though the population of California far exceeds that of Wyoming. The result is that the vote of one person in Wyoming is worth the same as the votes of 70 Californians. Whether you think this is a good thing or a bad thing is beside the point (and sometimes it may actually be a good thing). But the flaws in this system have become glaringly obvious in recent years.
Unfortunately, there is little hope for any reform. The political minorities that benefit from this system will never vote to change it, and the same mechanisms that allow them to block legislation mean that constitutional reform is virtually impossible no matter how much popular support it may have. But reform will certainly never happen as long as Americans continue to blindly believe that ours is the best of all possible constitutional systems, and this book goes a long way towards shedding some light on that subject.
Dahl compares the U.S. Constitution to the political systems used in all of the nations that have had a stable form of democratic government for at least 50 years (you'd perhaps be surprised at some of the well-known countries that rules out). By comparison, the American form of government does a very poor job of representing the will of the people and includes numerous mechanisms that allow very small minorities to thwart the will of the majority in their own self-interest. The Electoral College is probably the best-known example, insofar as it makes candidates pander to the interests of "swing states" and allows the President to be someone for whom the majority of the population didn't vote. To give just one example from the book (p. 50), California and Wyoming each have two U.S. Senators, even though the population of California far exceeds that of Wyoming. The result is that the vote of one person in Wyoming is worth the same as the votes of 70 Californians. Whether you think this is a good thing or a bad thing is beside the point (and sometimes it may actually be a good thing). But the flaws in this system have become glaringly obvious in recent years.
Unfortunately, there is little hope for any reform. The political minorities that benefit from this system will never vote to change it, and the same mechanisms that allow them to block legislation mean that constitutional reform is virtually impossible no matter how much popular support it may have. But reform will certainly never happen as long as Americans continue to blindly believe that ours is the best of all possible constitutional systems, and this book goes a long way towards shedding some light on that subject.
November 25, 2019
had to read this for school lol
August 22, 2018
In a series of lectures transferred by Robert Dahl into essays, Dahl posits exactly what the model and implications of the US hybrid constitutional system actually is and shows that it does not, historically, balance democratic and minority rights. Dahl notices what many have noticed since the attempts to expand democracy into the Arab world have noticed, despite US's internal narrative about its democracy, it doesn't even impose its system on others: generally, when a state is made democratic by US intervention, it a given a parliamentary system or a presidential/parliamentary hybrid model.
While this does lay the cause, and makes particularly insightful comparisons to other stable and long-established democratic systems, it is not very deep in its analysis. The extremely disproportionate nature of the Senate and increased US urbanization make votes worth different amounts, the winner take-all nature of most states, and the Presidential conflation of head of government and head of state are well-known to those familiar with political science. Dahl does spell out the consequences of this fairly well with comparisons to other systems, and points out that in several models, the US is unique: it's neither a consensus and majoritarian system, but an awkward hybrid of both. There are flaws here though, while evidence is presented in support of Dahl's thesis, the traditional counter-arguments aren't articulated completely. While some of the Federalist arguments are deemed irrelevant (and in the case of Hamilton even a bit inaccurate), other modern arguments about inefficiently of national popular vote and the centralization of power in major areas with Presidential systems (see Mexico City) leading even more corruption than in our system remain unaddressed.
Dahl's critique of the supreme court is sound in many respects, but he does not deal the indirectly accountable through nomination by the President and approval of Congress. Nor does he deal with the crises of Latin American democracies with Presidential executives and weak-supreme courts because he 22 comparison nations do not readily include them. Dahl then can't deal with directly with the idea that indirect accountability may or may not be effective because it isn't factored into the argument at all.
There are some areas where Dahl is particularly strong, including the idea of the party rules system and unstated governmental norms effectively constituted an unwritten constitution that states and parties could more easily systematically change than our current jammed amendment system. However, Dahl does not seem optimistic that this will happen.
This is definitely worth reading if you unfamiliar with this line of critique, but is highly persuasive, but those who are more knowledgable may be slightly frustrated by what this book doesn't address because the nature of the lectures on which it is based.
While this does lay the cause, and makes particularly insightful comparisons to other stable and long-established democratic systems, it is not very deep in its analysis. The extremely disproportionate nature of the Senate and increased US urbanization make votes worth different amounts, the winner take-all nature of most states, and the Presidential conflation of head of government and head of state are well-known to those familiar with political science. Dahl does spell out the consequences of this fairly well with comparisons to other systems, and points out that in several models, the US is unique: it's neither a consensus and majoritarian system, but an awkward hybrid of both. There are flaws here though, while evidence is presented in support of Dahl's thesis, the traditional counter-arguments aren't articulated completely. While some of the Federalist arguments are deemed irrelevant (and in the case of Hamilton even a bit inaccurate), other modern arguments about inefficiently of national popular vote and the centralization of power in major areas with Presidential systems (see Mexico City) leading even more corruption than in our system remain unaddressed.
Dahl's critique of the supreme court is sound in many respects, but he does not deal the indirectly accountable through nomination by the President and approval of Congress. Nor does he deal with the crises of Latin American democracies with Presidential executives and weak-supreme courts because he 22 comparison nations do not readily include them. Dahl then can't deal with directly with the idea that indirect accountability may or may not be effective because it isn't factored into the argument at all.
There are some areas where Dahl is particularly strong, including the idea of the party rules system and unstated governmental norms effectively constituted an unwritten constitution that states and parties could more easily systematically change than our current jammed amendment system. However, Dahl does not seem optimistic that this will happen.
This is definitely worth reading if you unfamiliar with this line of critique, but is highly persuasive, but those who are more knowledgable may be slightly frustrated by what this book doesn't address because the nature of the lectures on which it is based.
Read
July 25, 2024I know Dahl is something of a titan in political theory, and I understand that this was a much-feted work back in the oughties, but it felt a bit… almost obvious? Like Dahl hadn’t witnessed the meltdowns of the next few decades, the ways in which the enduring awfulness cascades down from the ad-hoc decisions of a handful of men who to a certain extent had history thrust upon them, whether that is the continuing stupidity of the electoral college, the undemocratic U.S. Senate, or the unchecked manias of the Supreme Court. If I was a bit less informed (or maybe if I’d come of age in different times), I’d be more impressed... or for that matter if I was a norms-obsessed liberal centrist. He is, however, a good storyteller, and a good guide. I’d like to read some of his deeper texts.
February 7, 2017
A very fine analysis of the shortcomings of the US Constitution. I agree with the author that we could all benefit by being a little less precious about our founding document.
Many Americans have a misplaced sense of pride in the Constitution. It is far from perfect. Let's face it, this is old tech. Can you think of anything else from the late 18th century that survives basically unchanged to this day? The fact is there is plenty of room to improve upon what the American framers created during that hot Philadelphia summer of 1787.
If you need proof consider that the most popular parts of the Constitution all come from the Bill of Rights - the very first revisions to the Constitution, necessary because without those first ten amendments most states would never have adopted the Constitution. Or consider the 3/5 compromise enshrined in Article 1 section 2 which said one human slave was the equivalent to 3/5 of a person. Or consider the Electoral College, which has managed to award the presidency to the loser of the popular vote 11% of the time.
Robert Dahl compares our constitution to what other major industrial nations have and finds ours wanting. His arguments are persuasive. Political equality is a worthy and necessary goal that modern day Americans should be striving for. If we are going to achieve that goal we must begin to address our founding document a bit more critically. This book is a great place to start.
And if I can just add one brief postscript against Larry Sabato's A More Perfect Constitution - this book has so much more substance. Read this one instead.
Many Americans have a misplaced sense of pride in the Constitution. It is far from perfect. Let's face it, this is old tech. Can you think of anything else from the late 18th century that survives basically unchanged to this day? The fact is there is plenty of room to improve upon what the American framers created during that hot Philadelphia summer of 1787.
If you need proof consider that the most popular parts of the Constitution all come from the Bill of Rights - the very first revisions to the Constitution, necessary because without those first ten amendments most states would never have adopted the Constitution. Or consider the 3/5 compromise enshrined in Article 1 section 2 which said one human slave was the equivalent to 3/5 of a person. Or consider the Electoral College, which has managed to award the presidency to the loser of the popular vote 11% of the time.
Robert Dahl compares our constitution to what other major industrial nations have and finds ours wanting. His arguments are persuasive. Political equality is a worthy and necessary goal that modern day Americans should be striving for. If we are going to achieve that goal we must begin to address our founding document a bit more critically. This book is a great place to start.
And if I can just add one brief postscript against Larry Sabato's A More Perfect Constitution - this book has so much more substance. Read this one instead.
April 18, 2015
So, how democratic is the Constitution? Not completely. In this book, political scientist Robert Dahl explains how the U.S. Constitution is not as democratic as people may imagine. This should come as no surprise to people that have actually read the Constitution and who know something of its history. In fact, the Constitution was intentionally designed to be less than democratic – only members of the House of Representatives were originally elected by the people. Senators were elected by state legislature. That was changed by the 17th amendment, but the president is still elected by electors so that a person can win the electoral vote without winning the popular vote. Members of the cabinet aren’t elected, and judges are appointed too. But Dahl’s main complaint is the Constitution’s violation of the one-man, one-vote principle. He has a good point – California, which has over 38 million inhabitants, has as many senators as Wyoming, which has less than 600,000 people. Equality in the Senate made sense when the Constitution was drafted, to reassure the smaller states so they would ratify, but it makes no sense now. But other than that, I’m not sure that I am convinced by his arguments that our constitution should be changed to enshrine direct democracy. We have had remarkable success in protecting rights and maintaining stability with the structure we have.
February 14, 2016
Slugging through this book was as close to eating sawdust—whole, raw, and fragmented—as I hope I will get in my life.
Read
December 19, 2025Es extraño leer este libro siendo de Chile. Los autores plantean otro mundo: la identificación partidaria como una identidad social – equivalente a la religión. Si bien es posible que para algunas personas los partidos puedan lograr semejante arraigo en la personalidad, para la mayoría de los chilenos los partidos no son una fuente de identificación; incluso una parte importante de la población ni siquiera se describe a sí mismos dentro del espectro ideológico.
Esto, como los autores señalan al final del libro, puede tener consecuencias sistémicas. No solo puede aumentar la volatilidad del sistema de partidos, alternancia de poder, sino que también favorece la fragmentación partidaria – esto es aún más preocupante con sistemas electorales proporcionales. Esta situación recuerda la importancia de los partidos de generar vínculos perdurables con el electorado. Ahora, en Chile, no solo tenemos un sistema de partidos uprooted, sino ya ni siquiera es estable – con la aparición de nuevos partidos y declive (desaparición) de partidos tradicionales.
La metodología utilizada para defender sus ideas es muy robusta y novedosa. Por un lado, los modelos de medición les permite confirmar que la identificación partidaria es muy estable, no solo en Estados Unidos sino que también en otras partes del mundo. Por otro, con un enfoque Bayesiano, observan como las actitudes siguen un biased learning model, donde las preferencias para un partido dependen de la información actual (y su variación) e informaciones pasada (y sus varianzas).
Esto, como los autores señalan al final del libro, puede tener consecuencias sistémicas. No solo puede aumentar la volatilidad del sistema de partidos, alternancia de poder, sino que también favorece la fragmentación partidaria – esto es aún más preocupante con sistemas electorales proporcionales. Esta situación recuerda la importancia de los partidos de generar vínculos perdurables con el electorado. Ahora, en Chile, no solo tenemos un sistema de partidos uprooted, sino ya ni siquiera es estable – con la aparición de nuevos partidos y declive (desaparición) de partidos tradicionales.
La metodología utilizada para defender sus ideas es muy robusta y novedosa. Por un lado, los modelos de medición les permite confirmar que la identificación partidaria es muy estable, no solo en Estados Unidos sino que también en otras partes del mundo. Por otro, con un enfoque Bayesiano, observan como las actitudes siguen un biased learning model, donde las preferencias para un partido dependen de la información actual (y su variación) e informaciones pasada (y sus varianzas).
November 28, 2014
Let me preface with saying that I rarely give books 5 stars. A book has to be accessible to me intellectually, keep my interest throughout, compel deep thought or entertain me wildly, and it has to leave me with several take aways. This book met every one of those expectations. While it's not a book you might cuddle up with on a rainy day, it fills in significant holes one might have around the legitimacy of the constitution as a national symbol. It provokes the question "why are we so beholden to this document?" and "is it really a legitimate standard to base our democratic system?". This is a must read for every person wanting to understand the un-democratic elements found in the American constitution. I took a politics course on my way to getting my Masters and this was required reading that I hadn't had a chance to finish.
May 22, 2016
I'm not entirely sure that I enjoyed this book, but I would certainly recommend it.
I tend to think of the Constitution as the Bill of Rights, but Dahl is really focusing on the institution of American Government -- specifically voting systems and methods of representation. I was initially somewhat skeptical, partly due to Dahl's writing style, but by the middle/end, I was definitely a convert. I really enjoyed operating under the assumption that Dahl's perspective is true in my American politics class, so it is somewhat frustrating to try and consider any kind of meaningful reform in this area. Definitely a great conversation starter so I'd love to chat if anyone else reads it!
I tend to think of the Constitution as the Bill of Rights, but Dahl is really focusing on the institution of American Government -- specifically voting systems and methods of representation. I was initially somewhat skeptical, partly due to Dahl's writing style, but by the middle/end, I was definitely a convert. I really enjoyed operating under the assumption that Dahl's perspective is true in my American politics class, so it is somewhat frustrating to try and consider any kind of meaningful reform in this area. Definitely a great conversation starter so I'd love to chat if anyone else reads it!
June 16, 2012
Read this book, and you'll be convinced that our sacred document isn't as democratic as people assume it is. I also like the comparisons of the U.S. political system to other democratic systems around the developed world.
July 8, 2017
Very concise evisceration of the arcane Senate and Electoral College systems in the US. A lot of the book centers around state populations and congress as it was in 2001 (time of writing), but in light of the 2016 Electoral College failure the book is especially damning.
August 19, 2007
A short book, but gives the reader a lot to think about.
August 17, 2010
If you ever want a bird's eye view of this man's project - democratic theory in general - shorn of all academic pretense, he gives it to you here.
September 21, 2010
His ideas were insightful but I feel it is wishful thinking.
February 7, 2013
Wasn't a fan of this book. It was thought provoking but more so because it was so terrible.
January 1, 2022
Very easy to follow Dahl's arguments. Dahl main argument is that the Framers of the constitution. Dahl argues that initially most of thee . the framers of the constitutional system wanted an aristocratic republic. Most of them including Dahl' s favorite framer James Madison believed that they meaning white Christian, property-owning males were the best to govern this country. Madison Dahl argued was one of the most progressive founding fathers and that in later in his life realize that his fear of the tyranny of the majority was misplaced. Most of the left will think Dahl is being apologia for white supremacy and capitalism and the right will see him as being anti-American liberal professor. I believe that Dahl is offering a nuanced picture of the founders as mortal men with biases, conflicts of interests and ideals. Dahl points to the design of the constitutional system as elitist. From the design of the US Senate, electoral college, gerrymandering presidency and the judiciary. Dahl criticizes the senate. In ideal situation Dahl would prefer a unicameral parliamentary democracy similar to the UK.
Robert Dahl criticizes the design of the senate. Dahl dismisses the justification that small states need the senate as a firewall against most populace states. Dahl argues that this fear is overblown and that smaller states can use the bill of rights to protect themselves from the intrusion of more populated states. Dahl cites James Madison small states weren't naturally small states but it was political choice to make them small. I agree with Dahl but I wish he would give reasons for these political choices to keep small states small. Dahl points out that many of these states/colonies suppressed minorities such indigenous people, women, enslaved Africans and their descendants.
Dahl points that the constitution i. He s hard to amend the constitution much less to pass bills because of the senate. A senator can filibuster debate and there would need to be a sixty vote in the senate to resume debate. Dahl says "the senate is where bills to go die"
In many ways Dahl is pessimistic constitution system to a more democratic, participatory system. But he is not fatalist that the constitutional system can be changed. But he is being realistic about such effort. He cites the unwritten constitutional system as a way to overcome the unsettled questions within the written system. He cautions that leftists need to understand the constitution and find ways to make it more democratic.
Robert Dahl criticizes the design of the senate. Dahl dismisses the justification that small states need the senate as a firewall against most populace states. Dahl argues that this fear is overblown and that smaller states can use the bill of rights to protect themselves from the intrusion of more populated states. Dahl cites James Madison small states weren't naturally small states but it was political choice to make them small. I agree with Dahl but I wish he would give reasons for these political choices to keep small states small. Dahl points out that many of these states/colonies suppressed minorities such indigenous people, women, enslaved Africans and their descendants.
Dahl points that the constitution i. He s hard to amend the constitution much less to pass bills because of the senate. A senator can filibuster debate and there would need to be a sixty vote in the senate to resume debate. Dahl says "the senate is where bills to go die"
In many ways Dahl is pessimistic constitution system to a more democratic, participatory system. But he is not fatalist that the constitutional system can be changed. But he is being realistic about such effort. He cites the unwritten constitutional system as a way to overcome the unsettled questions within the written system. He cautions that leftists need to understand the constitution and find ways to make it more democratic.
November 1, 2025
The main strength of the this book I believe is the broad arrange of issues that it covers. From American politics, comparative politics, political philosophy, essentially covering all aspect of political science. It even briefly touched upon the topics of jurisdeprudence and discussed the idea of political methodology, which it employed quite a few.
All of this make it a great book for beginners in politics. Although it briefly mentioned some contemporary political theories, such as consocialtionalism by Lijphart, the overwhelming majority of the book stopped before in depth discussions are to be made. Nevertheless, this is totally justifiable since this is a popular science book, not a research paper, after all.
Nevetheless, the reading still provided me with much insight. Some minor takeaways including the Senate Clause in Article V, consensual v. majoritarian (which I am about to explore in more depth). The rights part in the amendment of the constitution. Its definition on democracy is also interesting and thought-provoking.
Interestingly, his ideas contradict heavily with one of his colleague at Yale, Akhil Reed Amar, who believes that the American Constitution was unique becasue of it is so advanced and ahead of time. They could have a fight.
One of the thing that slightly puzzled me is the set of cases he chose. If he was to examine the effect of the constitutional system, shouldn't he choose countries that are similar to the U.S. in all other ways except the Constitution? I don't know if this is for simplicity or something else.
All of this make it a great book for beginners in politics. Although it briefly mentioned some contemporary political theories, such as consocialtionalism by Lijphart, the overwhelming majority of the book stopped before in depth discussions are to be made. Nevertheless, this is totally justifiable since this is a popular science book, not a research paper, after all.
Nevetheless, the reading still provided me with much insight. Some minor takeaways including the Senate Clause in Article V, consensual v. majoritarian (which I am about to explore in more depth). The rights part in the amendment of the constitution. Its definition on democracy is also interesting and thought-provoking.
Interestingly, his ideas contradict heavily with one of his colleague at Yale, Akhil Reed Amar, who believes that the American Constitution was unique becasue of it is so advanced and ahead of time. They could have a fight.
One of the thing that slightly puzzled me is the set of cases he chose. If he was to examine the effect of the constitutional system, shouldn't he choose countries that are similar to the U.S. in all other ways except the Constitution? I don't know if this is for simplicity or something else.
August 29, 2020
This was originally a series of lectures that Dahl turned into a book, so each chapter has a clear and direct point. His main argument is that the U.S. Constitution is deeply flawed. The Framers were forced to make compromises to get it ratified and were working with only the British Constitution to work from. As a result, they made some choice that either didn't work or didn't age well.
Dahl's biggest complaint is the Electoral College, with the Senate a close second, because both give minorities disproportionate and undeserved power. He also thinks the "first past the post system", which discourages third parties and polarizes the country, should be replaced with a system of proportional representation, which would mean that even those who didn't win an election would be represented to some degree and government could be more consensual than adversarial. Perhaps the most damning indictment is that with all the countries that have adopted representative government since the United States, none have adopted our system.
Unfortunately, he doesn't see much likelihood of changing the system, so he can tell us what is wrong, but not prescribe a way to make changes. He is particularly concerned that Americans deify the Framers without every looking critically at their work, which means that most people don't even see the problem.
This is a good and thoughtful book, albeit a depressing one.
Dahl's biggest complaint is the Electoral College, with the Senate a close second, because both give minorities disproportionate and undeserved power. He also thinks the "first past the post system", which discourages third parties and polarizes the country, should be replaced with a system of proportional representation, which would mean that even those who didn't win an election would be represented to some degree and government could be more consensual than adversarial. Perhaps the most damning indictment is that with all the countries that have adopted representative government since the United States, none have adopted our system.
Unfortunately, he doesn't see much likelihood of changing the system, so he can tell us what is wrong, but not prescribe a way to make changes. He is particularly concerned that Americans deify the Framers without every looking critically at their work, which means that most people don't even see the problem.
This is a good and thoughtful book, albeit a depressing one.
November 25, 2016
A timely read in light of the Electoral College controversy renewed this election cycle. Dahl does an excellent job of explaining the background and mechanics of the substantial flaws in the Constitutional scheme established by the Founders (in part deliberate, as required by the compromises necessary to form the United States, but in substantial part due to lack of comparable real world contemporary experiences). Dahl's focus is centered primarily on the terribly skewed populations represented in the Senate (e.g., 70 Californians vote for each voter in Wyoming), and thus reflected in the Electoral College (whose numbers reflect the combination of Representatives and Senators in a state). The problems with the presidential system as a whole are also discussed at length, and comparisons with nearly two dozen other long-lived (>50 years) democratic countries are illustrative of other viable perspectives and solutions. I think this short book is eminently readable for anyone interested in the background, concerns and (for at least a few issues) potential avenues of redress for our anti-democratic systems, including avenues that don't involve the almost impossible process of amending the Constitution (we will never get 3/4 of the states to agree to fix these flaws).
March 3, 2021
Dahl propõe mudanças na forma de pensar sobre a constituição dos EUA. Para o autor, os autores da constituição tinham limitações de sua época no momento da escrita da constituição. Ao criar um sistema único, não o tornaram necessariamente bom. O colégio eleitoral, por exemplo, apresenta certa dimensão antidemocrática. Ao comparar os modelos constitucionais majoritário e consensual, Dahl entende que o modelo americano é híbrido, mas com vícios do consensual e majoritário. Para o autor, igualdade política leva a mais liberdade. Uma constituição mais democrática e igualitária pode ser benéfica para todos. Dahl propõe sugestões para tornar a constituição mais democrática, mas se mostra cético de que elas sejam implementadas. Por fim, o autor sugere mudar o sistema eleitoral de forma a torná-lo mais inclusivo e consensual.
Em geral, a crítica de Dahl é que: a constituição americana foi concebida por uma aristocracia marcada por vícios de seu tempo e que se mostrou cética quanto à participação mais efetiva do povo.
Em geral, a crítica de Dahl é que: a constituição americana foi concebida por uma aristocracia marcada por vícios de seu tempo e que se mostrou cética quanto à participação mais efetiva do povo.
March 22, 2019
This was a short but very interesting book. Dahl takes the reader through the un-democratic aspects of the constitution, such as the inequality inherent in the Senate, in the way the President is elected or the veto given to the Supreme Court. He then takes the reader through the historical context in which these aspects were designed as well as comparing them to the way those problems were solved in the constitutions of other countries. By exploring the realities of the constraints placed on the Framers of the constitution, Dahl also shows the way in which abstract reality is confronted with feasible practicality. He then uses this second metric to discuss the changes he would advise as well as their slim chances of passing. However, he ends the book in the positive note of discussing all the ways in which the democratic tendencies of the American people have prevailed over the restrictive definition of democracy that the Framer’s had in mind.
April 8, 2023
Not very, says Dahl. For one thing, the Senate is a profoundly unjust institution that gives too much power to citizens in smaller states making their vote more powerful than yours. Then there's the electoral college that gives greater power in the presidential elections to the more populous states. Then there's the supreme court, where undemocratically appointed people serving for life make binding decisions on your livelihood. Before that, there was slavery and the exclusion of women from voting. We could go on and on.
Dahl pretends to be pessimistic but he holds out hope we can get around these limitations, the same way Thomas Jefferson and James Madison did in the so-called Quiet Revolution of 1800. They began to find ways to interpret the constitution in a way that worked toward greater democratization. Dahl thinks we may be able to too. Apologies for the pessimism but I won't hold my breath.
Dahl pretends to be pessimistic but he holds out hope we can get around these limitations, the same way Thomas Jefferson and James Madison did in the so-called Quiet Revolution of 1800. They began to find ways to interpret the constitution in a way that worked toward greater democratization. Dahl thinks we may be able to too. Apologies for the pessimism but I won't hold my breath.
July 30, 2024
Prof. Dahl persuasively argues that American Constitution is in fact not that democratic. In particular, it departs from the democratic principle of equal representation of citizens (as individuals) in favor of equal representation of states (as abstract entities). The electoral college is a unique mechanism which does not follow the logic neither of majority rule nor rule by consensus, having the vices of both and lacking their merits. The author argues both in favor of amending of the Constitution (which he regards as unrealistic) and in favor of altering “unwritten Constitution” (election rules etc.) in order to make the U.S. more democratic.
Some elements of the reasoning used by prof. Dahl prompt a question: if undemocratic provisions of the Constitution function relatively well, may be some democratic principles, in particular, the principle of majority rule, are somewhat overrated? This question is not addressed in the book and remains open.
Some elements of the reasoning used by prof. Dahl prompt a question: if undemocratic provisions of the Constitution function relatively well, may be some democratic principles, in particular, the principle of majority rule, are somewhat overrated? This question is not addressed in the book and remains open.
August 14, 2022
An interesting set of essays built around the historicity of the development of the constitution, James Madison's thinking process and Dahl's previous work on democracy. Short in pages and details, Dahl spends more time on his own views as to where and how the constitution should be ''heading'' as a document that is ''alive'', a direction that is ''of course'' more democratic, in the Plutarchic sense, which seems to be Dahl's system of predilection, unlike Buchanan penchant for the Madisonian system, then the historical evolution of the debates at the continental congress of 1787, which might have been, in my opinion at least, made ''How Democratic is the American Constitution'' into a more interesting read. To read as an interesting ''democratic extension'' of Gordon's famous book on the subject of constitutional history.
October 14, 2019
a much-needed break from the unthinking, adulatory attitudes towards our founding document. but still respectful of the genius of the American system despite its unintended flaws. a very balanced account.
although the Founders might not have wanted America to be especially democratic, our current political leaders certainly pay lip service to the idea. but Dahl points out that our Constitution creates some major inequalities between ostensibly equal citizens--particularly regarding the Senate and the Electoral College. I found his arguments quite logical, although there are few solutions offered given that the inequalities we face are built into the very structure of the Constitution and therefore extremely difficult to change.
although the Founders might not have wanted America to be especially democratic, our current political leaders certainly pay lip service to the idea. but Dahl points out that our Constitution creates some major inequalities between ostensibly equal citizens--particularly regarding the Senate and the Electoral College. I found his arguments quite logical, although there are few solutions offered given that the inequalities we face are built into the very structure of the Constitution and therefore extremely difficult to change.
February 3, 2026
Dahl makes a compelling argument in this book, particularly about the fallacy of legislating for future majorities. This concept is broadened throughout the text as he emphasizes that the modern American (or any American from any period) could possibly understand the framers intentions because they didn’t really understand what their intentions were themselves. Dahl seeks to address some key factors of the constitution that are notably “undemocratic” such as the minority veto in the senate and electoral college. He provides reasonable offerings for potential replacements or alterations to these parts of the constitution based on his data-driven collection of similar democratic countries. Great read that’s easy to follow and compelling to read!
November 26, 2022
Five stars because it’s clear and concise book on how the Constitution limits representation of the
people. Why we have two parties and are destined to always have two parties, and the differences between proportional representation(what most democratic countries have today) and majoritarian representation (what we have). The only gripe I have is that Dahl somewhat glorifies proportional representation imo, he doesn’t go into enough detail on what could go wrong in a system that doesn’t vote for candidates and just parties. He builds a good argument though, and he does a good job of explaining why our system is nearly impossible to change.
people. Why we have two parties and are destined to always have two parties, and the differences between proportional representation(what most democratic countries have today) and majoritarian representation (what we have). The only gripe I have is that Dahl somewhat glorifies proportional representation imo, he doesn’t go into enough detail on what could go wrong in a system that doesn’t vote for candidates and just parties. He builds a good argument though, and he does a good job of explaining why our system is nearly impossible to change.
January 18, 2023
While I found parts of this book repetitive and superficial (excusable to an extent as it is based on actual lectures at a university), it prods the reader to question the US constitution, and argues that the origin of current deficiencies of the US democracy lies in its constitution. The process of electoral college, the supposed “equality” among states (whereby the smaller states are entitled to same number of senators as the big states), the presidential system (where enormous powers are held by one person only), and the excessive power of the supreme court are among the most compelling supporting points that Dahl provides in furthering his thesis.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 79 reviews