The Crisis of Minority Rule in American Democracy
America was principally designed to operate under a majoritarian government, administered by the will of the majority of its citizens with safeguards erected to protect the rights of minority populations. This ideal is encapsulated in a quote from the Constitution’s author, James Madison, emphasizing that “no other rule exists . . . but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.”1 It is strikingly clear that contemporary America has deviated from its intended system of majority rule with checks upon the power of an overweening majority in favor of another form of governance predicated not on the will of the majority but on a mere plurality or minority. This trend naturally results in undemocratic outcomes, as “any departure from strict majority rule gives disproportionate power to the minority.”2 The American presidential electoral system is far too vulnerable to minoritarian rule, with two of the last six presidential elections having been decided with the ultimate victor losing the popular vote. Further examples of minoritarian rule in America include: states with small populations possessing equal, inordinate representation in the Senate; gerrymandering and partisan voter obstructionism manipulating electoral outcomes nationwide; the wealthy holding an outsized voice in electoral outcomes; and individual senators or small minority coalitions halting action on the Senate floor. Minority rule has become a growing trend in American governance, an unintended consequence of the Founders’ desire to reign in “mob rule.”3 This trend toward minority rule has been widely derided because it leads to undemocratic outcomes through which the will of the majority is disregarded because of the manipulation of some of America’s antiquated political institutions.
David Mayhew argued in Partisan Balance: Why Political Parties Don’t Kill the U.S. Constitutional System that the American system has largely delivered majoritarian outcomes.4 In contrast, Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann “doubt” that modern American politics are on course to consistently deliver majoritarian outcomes, particularly considering “[t]hese perilous times and the political responses to them are qualitatively different from what we have seen before.”5
Ultimately, America is on the precipice of a liminal moment, in desperate need of substantive changes to its democracy but unable to form a consensus about the proper course of action. This paper seeks to shine a light on the core of the nationwide discontent with America’s institutions that has enabled minoritarian seizure of authority, while offering recommendations to reestablish majority rule as America’s pervasive governing force.
Continue ReadingJAMES MADISON, MEMORIAL AND REMONSTRANCE AGAINST RELIGIOUS ASSESSMENTS (1785),
reprinted in 2 THE WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON 183-85 (Gaillard Hunt ed., 1901).
Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1, 6 (1971).
THE FEDERALIST NO. 10 (James Madison). Many of America’s Founding Fathers feared what might become of the nation if the majority were to rule impetuously over the minority groups, so safeguards were erected to ensure that the minority retained a public voice.
See DAVID R. MAYHEW, PARTISAN BALANCE: WHY POLITICAL PARTIES DON’T KILL THE U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM (2011). Mayhew finds that, generally, the American political system does a sound job at articulating the best interest of the majority of the American people. However, his book was written in 2011, and minoritarian rule has been a steadily growing force in American politics in the decade following the publication of this work—as exemplified by the election of President Donald Trump with a mere 46.1% of the popular vote and the stranglehold of Congressional authority attained by the Republican Party.