Opinion | The Republican Party Is Succeeding Because We Are Not a True Democracy – The New York Times

Majorities of the people, not the Electoral College, should be able to pick the president and decide who controls the House and Senate. All who make their lives in the United States including the incarcerated, people convicted of felonies and noncitizens should be allowed to vote.

This might sound alarming to inland Republican voters who imagine themselves besieged by a permanent coastal majority. But in a working democracy, there are no permanent majorities or minorities. Forging partnerships in a truly democratic system, inland conservatives would soon find new allies just not ones determined to break democracy itself.

Some of these changes probably require amending the Constitution. Hard changes have come through constitutional amendment before: Shortly before World War I, activists successfully pressed state legislatures to ratify an amendment giving up their power to choose U.S. senators. Maybe we can revive mass movements for amendments, starting with one that would make the amendment process itself more democratic. If the public supports a constitutional amendment to limit money in politics, restrict gerrymandering or enshrine a core abortion right, a committed majority should be able to say what our fundamental law is by popular vote, rather than having to go through the current, complicated process of ratifying amendments through state legislatures or dozens of constitutional conventions.

This may sound wild-eyed. But it would not always have. James Wilson, one of the most learned and thoughtful of the Constitutions framers, believed that as a matter of principle, the people may change the Constitution whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them. Even Madison conceded that if we thought of the Constitution as a national charter rather than a federal arrangement among sovereign states, the supreme and ultimate authority would reside with the majority, which had the power to alter or abolish its established government. It is hard to deny that, since 1789, the Constitution has become a national charter in the minds of most Americans.

Do we really think that establishing fundamental law is too much for us, something only revered (or reviled) ancestors could do? More likely we are afraid of one another and the decisions majorities would make. Thinkers like Madison associated democracy with majority tyranny, but history tells a different story. Even our terribly flawed legacy is rich in examples of majoritarian emancipation: New Deal programs, the Civil Rights Acts and the Voting Rights Act and Medicare. Majorities can change the world for the better, when they have the chance. Giving one another that chance, over and over, is how equals share a country.

But are we willing to give, and take, that chance? Maybe more than fearing majority tyranny, we suspect that the country is already too divided and mistrustful to make basic choices together at all. One thing Democrats and Republicans share is the belief that, to save the country, the other side must not be allowed to win. Every election is an existential crisis. In our current political climate, any proposal to democratize the system would immediately be coded as partisan, and half the country would reject it from the start. In such an anxious and suspicious country, the current system can be seen as a kind of peace treaty. Maybe that was what Mr. Biden meant when, just after taking his oath of office two weeks after the Capitol riot, in a Washington guarded by 26,000 troops, he praised the resilience of our Constitution.

But the Constitution is not keeping the peace; it is fostering crises. Far from being resilient, it is adding to our brittleness.

See the original post:

Opinion | The Republican Party Is Succeeding Because We Are Not a True Democracy - The New York Times