👉 https://www.goodreads.com/de/book/show/122769171-tyranny-of-the-minority

Notes

Constitutional Challenges and Democratic Reform

Aging Constitution (p.17)

The Constitution, while providing stability, now threatens democracy through its pre-democratic design.

That leads us to another unsettling truth. Part of the problem we face today lies in something many of us venerate: our Constitution. America has the world’s oldest written constitution. A brilliant work of political craftsmanship, it has provided a foundation for stability and prosperity. And for more than two centuries it has succeeded in checking the power of ambitious and overreaching presidents. But flaws in our Constitution now imperil our democracy.

Designed in a pre-democratic era, the U.S. Constitution allows partisan minorities to routinely thwart majorities, and sometimes even govern them. Institutions that empower partisan minorities can become instruments of minority rule. And they are especially dangerous when they are in the hands of extremist or antidemocratic partisan minorities.

Historical Minority Rule (p.127)

The three-fifths clause gave slave states disproportionate representation.

The biggest victory for the southern states, however, was the notorious “three-fifths clause,” which allowed them to count enslaved people as part of each state’s population (five slaves counted as three free persons) for the purposes of legislative apportionment, even though slaves had no rights. This expanded the slave states’ representation in the House, which also increased their influence in the Electoral College. In this way, the southern slaveholding minority achieved its demand for what the South Carolina delegate Charles Pinckney called “something like an equality.” For example, in 1790, Massachusetts’s voting population was greater than Virginia’s, but since Virginia had 300,000 slaves

Current Democratic Challenges

Racial Inequality (p.13)

The disparate treatment of citizens based on race remains evident in the justice system.

If you have any doubt that Black citizens do not enjoy the same rights under the law as white citizens, apply the Kyle Rittenhouse test: Could a young Black man cross state lines with a semiautomatic rifle, walk unmolested by police into a protest, fire into a crowd, kill two people, and go free?

Democratic Decline (p.14)

U.S. democracy shows significant decline in global rankings since 2015.

Freedom House’s Global Freedom Index gives countries a score between 0 and 100 each year, with 100 being the most democratic. In 2015, the United States received a score of 90, which was roughly in line with countries like Canada, Italy, France, Germany, Japan, Spain, and the U.K. But after that, America’s score declined steadily, reaching 83 in 2021. Not only was that score lower than every established democracy in western Europe, but it was lower than new or historically troubled democracies like Argentina, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, and Taiwan.

Senate Representation Imbalance (p.143)

Republican senators have consistently represented a minority of Americans in the 21st century.

Or look at it another way: At no time during the twenty-first century have Senate Republicans represented a majority of the U.S. population. Based on states’ populations, Senate Democrats have continuously represented more Americans since 1999. In the 2016 election, for example, the Republicans won a fifty-two-seat Senate majority. But their senators represented only 45 percent of Americans. In 2018, the GOP won a fifty-three-seat majority, but again, its senators represented only a minority (48 percent) of Americans. After the 2020 election, which left the Senate evenly split, the fifty Democratic senators represented 55 percent of Americans—41.5 million more people than the fifty Republican senators. The pattern continued in 2022: the GOP continued to hold more Senate seats (forty-nine) than its vote share (42 percent).

Principles of Democracy

Democratic Acceptance (p.21)

Democracy requires accepting electoral losses.

As the political scientist Adam Przeworski memorably put it, “Democracy is a system in which parties lose elections.” Losing hurts, but in a democracy it is inevitable. And when it happens, parties must do what the Peronists did: accept defeat, go home, and then figure out how to win a majority in the next election.

Core Democratic Requirements (p.40)

Three fundamental commitments required of democratic politicians.

Politicians who are committed to democracy, or what the political scientist Juan Linz called loyal democrats, must always do three basic things. First, they must respect the outcome of free and fair elections, win or lose.

This means consistently and unhesitatingly accepting defeat.

Second, democrats must unambiguously reject violence (or the threat of violence) as a means of achieving political goals. Politicians who support military coups, organize putsches, incite insurrections, plot bombings, assassinations, and other terrorist acts, or deploy militias or thugs to beat up opponents or intimidate voters are not democrats. Indeed, any party or politician that violates either of these two basic rules should be considered a threat to democracy.

But there is a third, more subtle action required of loyal democrats: they must always break with antidemocratic forces. Democracy’s assassins always have accomplices—political insiders who appear to abide by democracy’s rules but quietly assault them.

Democratic Enablers (p.41)

The danger of mainstream parties tolerating extremists.

Democracies get into trouble when mainstream parties tolerate, condone, or protect authoritarian extremists*—when they become *authoritarian enablers. Indeed, throughout history, cooperation between authoritarians and seemingly respectable semi-loyal democrats has been a recipe for democratic breakdown.

Democracy in Spain (p.45)

This is how democracy is defended. In Spain, the date of February 23 is celebrated publicly as a moment of triumph. In 2006, on the event’s twenty-fifth anniversary, the parliament issued a statement, endorsed by all parties, that described the coup as “the gravest attempt to forcefully violate freedoms and to abort the democratic process in Spain.” No one excused the attempted coup. No one downplayed

Balance of Powers (p.115)

Democracy requires both majority rule and minority rights protection.

Part of the answer is that democracy needs rules that limit the power of majorities. Modern democracy is not simply a system of majority rule; it combines majority rule and minority rights. Early defenders of limited government feared excessive concentrations of power—not only in the hands of kings, but also in the hands of popular majorities. And so the form of democracy that emerged in the West between the late eighteenth and the twentieth centuries, which today we call “liberal” democracy, is based on two pillars: collective self-rule (majority rule) and civil liberties (minority rights). Although liberal democracy cannot exist without free and fair elections, not everything can or should be up for grabs in elections.

Constraints on Majority Power (p.117)

Majorities must be prevented from undermining democratic competition.

Majorities must also be constrained in a second area: the rules of democracy itself. Elected governments must not be able to use their temporary majorities to entrench themselves in power by changing the rules of the game in ways that weaken their opponents or undermine fair competition. This is the specter of “majority tyranny”: the possibility that a government will use its popular or parliamentary majority to vote the opposition—and democracy—out of existence.

Democratic Reform Strategies

Broad Coalition Building (p.179)

Historical examples of democratic forces uniting against extremism.

One strategy, born in the darkest days of 1930s Europe, is to corral all democratic-minded forces into a broad coalition to isolate and defeat antidemocratic extremists. Facing the specter of a global wave of fascism, many of Europe’s new democracies came to the brink of collapse between the two world wars. In some countries, mainstream politicians responded by setting aside their intense ideological differences and forging broad left-right coalitions to defend democracy. Acute crises call for extraordinary cooperation; leaders of rival parties realized they needed to temporarily set aside their policy goals and forge a common pro-democratic front, both at election time and while governing. In Finland in the early 1930s,2 the leftist Social Democrats joined center and center-right parties in a broad-based Legality Front to face down the fascist Lapua Movement. In Belgium,3 the center-left Labor Party joined forces with the conservative Catholic Party and the centrist Liberals in a right-leaning unity government to defeat the fascist Rexist Party. In both cases, coalitions of pro-democratic parties succeeded in keeping extremist forces out of power (until the Nazis invaded Belgium in 1940).

Electoral Competition (p.181)

Madison’s principle of using electoral competition to overcome extremism.

Here we return to a basic principle inspired by James Madison and others: Extremist minorities are best overcome through electoral competition. Madison believed that the need to win popular majorities would likely tame the most “sinister” political tendencies. But his formula requires that popular majorities actually prevail in elections. For that to happen, America must reform its institutions. The early twentieth century American reformer Jane Addams once wrote, “The cure for the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.”

Make voting simple (p.182)

Key measures that make voting simple and accessible in democratic societies:

In most democracies, this is not an issue. In a democracy, people are supposed to vote. So most democratic societies grant citizens a constitutional (or at least statutory) right to vote, and government authorities make it as easy as possible for people to vote. In some countries (Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Costa Rica, Uruguay), voting is obligatory; it is considered a civic duty, like paying taxes. In nearly all democracies, voter registration is automatic. Once citizens turn eighteen, their names are added to the rolls. And voting is made simple. Nearly all democracies in Europe and Latin America hold elections on the weekend, usually on a Sunday, so that work does not discourage or prevent people from voting. In most established democracies, voter turnout can reach as high as 80 percent. It’s not rocket science: if governments make it simple for citizens to register and vote, most of them will vote.

Voting Rights and Access (p.182-183)

The need for constitutional voting rights and easier voting access.

In the United States, to the surprise of many, there is no constitutional or even statutory “right to vote.” The Second Amendment affirmed Americans’ right to bear arms, but nowhere does the Constitution recognize their right to suffrage. Later amendments specified that suffrage may not be denied on the basis of race (Fifteenth Amendment) or sex (Nineteenth Amendment), but never has the Constitution positively affirmed Americans' right to vote. Likewise, although there are many federal laws protecting voting, no single federal statute grants all adult citizens the right to cast a ballot. Unlike most established democracies, the United States has a long history of governments discouraging and even suppressing the vote.

Comprehensive Reforms (p.183-185)

Detailed proposals for democratic reforms.

👉 Uphold the right to vote:

Quote

UPHOLD THE RIGHT TO VOTE. The right to vote is a core element of any modern definition of democracy. In representative democracies, citizens elect their leaders. Leaders can only be elected democratically if all citizens are able to vote. So if voting is costly or difficult for some citizens—if they have to stand in line for hours or travel long distances to vote—elections cannot be fully democratic.

In the United States,16 to the surprise of many, there is no constitutional or even statutory “right to vote.” The Second Amendment affirmed Americans’ right to bear arms, but nowhere does the Constitution recognize their right to suffrage. Later amendments specified that suffrage may not be denied on the basis of race (Fifteenth Amendment) or sex (Nineteenth Amendment), but never has the Constitution positively affirmed Americans’ right to vote. Likewise, although there are many federal laws protecting voting, no single federal statute grants all adult citizens the right to cast a ballot. Unlike most established democracies, the United States has a long history of governments discouraging and even suppressing the vote. Even today,17 America is also one of the few countries on earth (Belize and Burundi are two others) in which responsibility for voter registration lies entirely with individual citizens. Voting in America should be as straightforward

This means we should do the following: Pass a constitutional amendment18 establishing a right to vote for all citizens, which would provide a solid basis to litigate voting restrictions. Establish automatic registration in which all citizens are registered to vote when they turn eighteen. This could be accompanied by the automatic distribution of national voting ID cards to all citizens. The burdens of the registration process should not deter anyone from voting. Expand early voting and easy mail-in voting options for citizens of all states. It should be easy for all Americans to cast ballots. Make Election Day a Sunday or a national holiday, so that work responsibilities do not discourage Americans from voting. Restore voting rights (without additional fines or fees) to all ex-felons who have served their time. Restore national-level voting rights protections. In the spirit of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, parts of which the Supreme Court struck down in 2013, we should reinstate federal oversight of election rules and administration. This could apply only in states and localities with a history of voting rights violations, following the VRA model, or to all jurisdictions equally, following the model of the 1890 Lodge bill. Replace the current system of partisan electoral administration with one in which state and local electoral administration is in the hands of professional, nonpartisan officials. This will help ensure fairness in the updating of voter rolls, access to polling places, and the voting and vote-counting processes. Nearly every other established democracy, from France and Germany to Brazil, Costa Rica, Japan, and South Africa, has nonpartisan referees to oversee elections.

👉 Ensure election outcomes reflect majority preferences

Quote

ENSURE THAT ELECTION OUTCOMES REFLECT MAJORITY PREFERENCES. Those who win the most votes should win elections. Nothing in democratic theory justifies allowing losers to win elections. The political philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote that democracy should “giv[e] the powers of government in all cases to the numerical majority.”19 Unfortunately in U.S. presidential, Senate, and some state legislative elections, this frequently does not occur. Several steps can be taken to ensure that those who win electoral majorities actually govern: Abolish the Electoral College and replace it with a national popular vote. No other presidential democracy permits the loser of the popular vote to win the presidency. Such a constitutional amendment very nearly passed as recently as 1970. Reform the Senate so that the number of senators elected per state is more proportional to the population of each state (as in Germany). California and Texas should elect more senators than Vermont and Wyoming. Because Article V of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that “no state, without its Consent, may be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate” (a form of liberum veto), we understand the barriers to such a reform are enormous. But because the structure of the Senate so subverts basic democratic principles, and with such great consequence, any list of important democratizing reforms must include it. Replace “first-past-the-post”20 electoral rules and single-member districts for the House of Representatives and state legislatures with a form of proportional representation in which voters elect multiple representatives from larger electoral districts and parties win seats in proportion to the share of the vote they win. This would require repeal of the 1967 Uniform Congressional District Act, which mandates single-member districts for House elections. By ensuring that the distribution of seats21 in Congress more accurately reflects the way Americans vote, a proportional representation system would prevent the problem of “manufactured majorities,” in which parties that win fewer votes in an election capture a majority of seats in the legislature. As the political scientist Lee Drutman writes, a proportional representation system “treats all voters equally, regardless of where they live. And it treats all parties the same, regardless of where their voters live.”22 Eliminate partisan gerrymandering via the creation of independent redistricting commissions such as those used in California, Colorado, and Michigan. Update the Apportionment Act of 1929, which fixed the House of Representatives at 435, and return to the original design of a House that expands in line with population growth. At present, the ratio of voters23 to representatives in the House is nearly five times higher than that of any European democracy. Expanding the size of Congress would bring representatives closer to the people, and, if the Electoral College and the current Senate structure remain in place, mitigate the small-state bias of the Electoral College.

👉 Empower governing majorities

Quote

EMPOWER GOVERNING MAJORITIES. Finally, Americans must take steps to empower legislative majorities by weakening counter-majoritarian legislative and judicial institutions: Abolish the Senate filibuster (a reform that requires neither statutory nor constitutional change), thereby eliminating the ability of partisan minorities to repeatedly and permanently thwart legislative majorities. In no other established democracy is such a minority veto routinely employed. Establish term limits (perhaps twelve or eighteen years) for Supreme Court justices to regularize the Supreme Court appointment process so that every president has the same number of appointments per term. Such a reform would place the United States in the mainstream of all other major democracies in the world. This would also limit the court’s intergenerational counter-majoritarianism. Make it easier to amend the Constitution by eliminating the requirement that three-quarters of state legislatures ratify any proposed amendment. Requiring two-thirds supermajorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate for a constitutional amendment would bring America in line with most other established democracies, including federal democracies like Germany and India, as well as many U.S. states. These reforms would have a simple yet powerful effect: they would allow majorities to win power and govern. Not only would our proposed reforms help stave off minority rule, but they would also eliminate constitutional protectionism, unleashing the competitive dynamics of democracy. Importantly, the reforms would compel the Republicans to build broader coalitions in order to win. In America today, these coalitions would necessarily be more diverse, which would dilute the influence of the most extremist elements in the Republican Party. A more diverse Republican Party capable of winning national majorities fair and square might be bad news in electoral terms for the Democratic Party, but it would be very good news for American democracy. The reforms we propose might appear radical, but they are already in place in the vast majority of established democracies, including highly successful ones like Denmark, Germany, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, and Sweden. Making it simpler to vote, ending gerrymandering, replacing the Electoral College with a direct popular vote, eliminating the Senate filibuster, making Senate representation more proportional

Historical Perspective and Future Vision

Historical Change (p.187)

The possibility of achieving seemingly impossible reforms.

Just because an idea is not taken seriously today doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be taken seriously—or that it won’t be taken seriously in the future. During the early nineteenth century, the idea of ending slavery was considered unthinkable in mainstream America, and abolitionists were dismissed as dreamers. When the women’s suffrage movement was born in the 1840s, no country in the world granted women the right to vote. Well into the twentieth century, mainstream America considered the idea of women’s suffrage absurd. And for decades after the Civil War, the pursuit of racial equality and civil rights was seen as impracticable, if not impossible. In each case, the mainstream view changed radically. But for that to happen, someone had to start a public conversation.

Power of Ideas (p.188)

The importance of proposing new ideas for change.

When institutional change happens, participants often quote the French poet Victor Hugo’s line “Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.” But an idea’s time can only come if someone has proposed it.

Founders’ Vision (p.190)

The Founders’ recognition of the need for constitutional evolution.

The founders actually knew this. They were not wedded to the original version of the Constitution. They recognized the limitations of their creation and believed that later generations would—and should—modify them. In 1787, just after the Philadelphia Convention, George Washington wrote, “The warmest friends and best supporters the Constitution has, do not contend that it is free from imperfections; but found them unavoidable.” If problems arose from these imperfections, Washington wrote, “the remedy must come hereafter.” He went on to write that the American people “can, as they will have the advantage of experience on their Side, decide with as much propriety on the alterations and amendments which are necessary as ourselves. I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us.”

Democratic Action (p.200)

The necessity of active engagement in democratic reform.

If there is one thing we’ve learned from democracy movements, past and present, it’s this: Democratic reform doesn’t just happen. It is made.

Call to Action (p.202)

The imperative to build an inclusive democracy.

Defending democracy is not the work of selfless heroes. Standing up for democracy means standing up for ourselves. Think back to the scenes from January 5 and January 6 that opened this book. What kind of society do we want to live in? Think of the millions of Americans—young and old, religious and secular, of every imaginable skin color—who took to the streets in the name of justice in the summer of 2020. The young people who marched that summer could have turned away from the system, but they turned out to vote instead. A new generation of Americans stood up to defend our imperfect democracy. But they also showed us a vision of a better democracy—*a democracy for all*. As the civil rights generation passes into history, the work of building a truly multiracial democracy falls upon us. Future generations will hold us to account.

Analysis

Minority Rule

Minority factions can endanger established democracies in several ways, including by exploiting constitutional rules, tolerating anti-democratic behavior, and subverting the electoral process [1-4].

Constitutional Hardball:

Tolerance of Anti-democratic Extremism:

Subversion of the Electoral Process:

Reinforcement of Authoritarianism:

Historical Examples:

Improve democratic forces

To improve the functionality of democracies, the authors suggest concrete recommendations, which can be categorized into the following clusters: