Part I: The Disarray of Majority Rule in American Democracy

Series I Does Democracy Have A Future?

THE DISARRAY OF MAJORITY RULE IN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

The framers of the constitution faced a serious problem. In outlook, following the American Revolution, many of the colonies maintained an independent spirit despite the notion of supposedly becoming a group of united states.  They still saw themselves as reluctant parts.  After all, up to this point, they had all been independent colonies.

Another reason for this reluctance was that the smaller populated states had a dim view of democratic majority rule since they would have fewer representatives and inevitably be outvoted by the more populated ones.  One solution to gaining their commitment to the union was creating the undemocratic Senate to thwart the pro-democratic rule of the House of Representatives.  While the House represented the population’s majority rule, the Senate represented state rule – equalized empowerment by giving each state two votes irrespective of their population.

 Also, extraordinary powers were given the Senate which made it even more appealing as an undemocratic body. In this body, state rights would prevail over citizenry rights, thwarting the notion of majority rule by the general population – keeping alive the independence of individual states.  In addition, the terms of office for Senators were six years where those for the House of Representatives was only for two years – a statement about superiority.  The states, rather than congress as a whole, were given the authority to amend the constitution.

Moreover, the Senate once constituted, was determined to make its own voting process even less democratic.  It eventually created the filibuster which raised the level of a determining vote to 60 which allowed the minority of its members to nullify the desire of the majority – again, diminishing the rule of majority vote.

Also, the framers of the constitution were not without their own democratic reluctance.  They were concerned about the general ignorance of a large segment of the population.  They feared that out of this ignorance the people would elect a president unqualified for the job.  To undo this possibility, they created the Electoral College.  Supposedly these official state groups would be politically savvy and correct any presidential election mistake made by the general populace.  The framers had not an inkling that this would actually create the opposite effect of overturning the popular vote in favor of a less qualified candidate.  Again, rule by democratic majority vote could be nullified by a small politically biased body empowered to overturn its outcome.

The importance of citizenry majority rule was further downplayed in importance by putting citizenry voting time on a workday rather than creating a special day devoted to this critical process.  This made it difficult for a large number of citizens to participate.  The message was that the vote of the lower uneducated and non-land holding classes was minimally important.  Current political bodies continue creating laws that further thwart the ability of large segments of the non-white citizenry to vote.

In recent years, the third branch of government, the Supreme Court, has made it clear that corporations and big business are free to determine who is elected through all manner of economic machinations of both the electoral and governing processes – handing over American governance to a monetary plutocracy. 

Here is a synopsis:

• The Senate, representing states,  was created to thwart the majority rule of the House of Representatives.
• The Senate created the filibuster to allow its minority vote to overpower its majority vote.
• The states, rather than congress, were given the authority to amend the constitution.
• The constitutional framers created the Electoral College to nullify the majority vote of the citizenry in a presidential election.
• The role of the working classes in the election process was downplayed by not creating a special day of focus for this imperative event.
• The Supreme Court has ruled that both elections and those elected shall be determined and guided by the whims of an economic plutocracy.

Also, a single person, the president, was given the power to veto the majority vote of both the House and the Senate.  The founders called it check and balances, but it was just another way of thwarting what democracy is really all about, namely, majority rule by the representatives of the general citizenry.

So, America is not a nation grounded in representative majority rule.  It is a complicated system of political empowerment and voting that tends to deny the actual intents of democracy.  That it has survived for almost two-hundred-and-fifty years is amazing and underscores the nation’s indebtedness to those who have been the diligent guardians of democratic intent  – its grounding in the citizenry’s mutual worth, its commitment to the citizenry’s common good, and its insistence on the citizenry’s right to vote.

Robert

mythinglink.com