Rating: 
Summary: Good but frustrating
Review: A must read for those interested in our constitution, but this should not be a first book you read on the subject. Try _The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution_ by Bernard Bailyn and _Original Meanings_ by Jack Rakove ( both Pulitzer Prize winning books )as initial readings. I found the book fascinating but flawed. Prof. Dahl has proposed some very interesting changes to our existing constitution. The electoral college, senate, judicial review ( supreme court )are some of the areas he covers. But I found his arguments one-sided and shallow. He talks about flaws but brings no real solutions to the table. At the end of the book he laments the fact that _any_ change will be almost impossible. I disagree with this outlook. He tries to compare different existing democracies, but uses different sets of countries for different comparisons without explaining why certain countries were included or excluded. I also believe the comparisons are pretty superficial. How do you say that Switzerland ( which has 4 national languages )is more diverse then the U.S.A. Please!!! His added political commentary sprinkled throughout the book had little to do with his constitutional arguments and more to do with advancing his political causes. With these and other problems this book is still a _must_ read.
Rating: 
Summary: Not Dahl's best
Review: Dahl is a fine scholar, as shown by his critiques, decades ago, of the leftist cliches of C. Wright Mills, and by his history of politics in the city of New Haven. There has been a falling off in the quality of his work in recent years, although sometimes the old fire is still there. In this book, I suspect, he is trying too hard to be accessible. One of his points in this book is that the judicial review of legislative actions has gone too far -- federal judges regularly usurp the proper province of elected officials. This view, of course, is shared by many on both the left and the right. Each side believes, naturally enough, that the courts that strike down its favorite statutes are tyrannically usurping power. In his discussions of judicial review, Dahl essentially alludes to issues that require careful consideration. His allusions just contribute to his display of populist values and pessimism about their implementation. They aren't analytically helpful.
Rating: 
Summary: Brief but insightful
Review: Dahl's book is actually more of an extended essay on the Constitution and the conflicts it has with modern concepts of democracy. In particular, Dahl focuses on such elements of the Constitution as senate representation and the electoral college, both of which provide representation on a basis other than that of population. These "flaws" in the Constitution are nothing new. Dahl's more insightful work is where he compares the United States to other, similar democracies and sees how our Constitution compares with theirs. This is a fast read, but that's as much a result of the brevity of the book as its writing. There are items Dahl could have developed more: in particular, the difficulty of amendment ratification fits perfectly into his book, but he really only mentions it as a stumbling block to Constitutional reform, not as another anti-democratic element of the document. Despite its flaws, this book succeeds in its chief goal, which is to look at the Constitution in a realistic manner, without the glorification that so many people give it. It may provide more questions than answers, but these are good questions that need to be asked.
Rating:
Summary: Great Value
Review: For its limited purpose and reasonable price, this book is worth buying. It focuses on bringing up certain questionable areas of democracy contained in our constitution and given possible solutions. As a book that introduces or reintroduces certain political concepts, this book is thought-provoking throughout and well worth reading. It better aquaints one with the American system of government through open questions and then tries to add fuel to age old question of the best type of constitution. Plato and Aristotle introduced us to such a question and Dahl continues the never ending game of what is the best structure by which a political system should be based. This is a great book to read.
Rating: 
Summary: This book is terrible! Stay away at all costs!
Review: I admit this book has some decent points to make but overall his analysis comes across as disorganized, bitter, ill informed, and he seems like a man who would be happier living in a European democracy. He makes the point that the Declaration of Independence isn't democratic because it says "all men" instead of "all persons." However, one trip to a dictionary that gives the history of the usage of the word "man" will show that up until the 20th century, "man" was used to mean 'mankind' and not just male humans. I'm only a college student getting a degree in political science and it's sad that I'm able to disprove a Yale professor with knowledge I receieved in high school. He is critical of our system only because other democratic countries have different systems. He also manages to slip in his bitterness over the 2000 election of George Bush several times by hiding it under the moniker of "international embarrassment" over the electoral college. I'll admit that he does have a few positive points to make on the Founding Fathers on such issues as slavery but his general analysis and criticism is almost an anachronism. He expects the Framers of the Constitution to be able to make judgement on issues with the knowledge and insight that a person of the 21st Century has. His book is poorly written as well; often he makes a controversial claim only to say "I'll address this in a later chapter." I've not read any other books that Dahl has written but this book leaves a bad taste in my mouth for his style and belief system.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant analysis, clear writing
Review: I heard Prof Dahl present these ideas at Yale last year and was struck both by the clarity of his thought and the elegance with which he presented his analyses. While his Preface to Democratic Theory is more remarkable in its sheer audacity (a bold critique of Madisonian (i.e. American) democracy), these lectures offer a unique insight into two of the strangest aspects of our system. While other reviewers are correct to note that the American system is not, technically, a democracy, Dahl's point is not historical, but prescriptive. Based on the assumption that we should be a democracy (the form of government we promote around the world), Dahl seeks to clarify how we might alter the current Constitution to make our system more democratic. Any criticism of this book that takes issue with Dahl's discussion of how to make America more democratic misses the point. This book is about how to make a functional democracy, and uses as its example the pseudo-democratic American system.
Rating:
Summary: A short course in comparative democracy
Review: I was enthralled by this book the instant I saw it, because it asked hard questions about American democracy that I've never heard from anyone else before. I would summarize this book as a short course in comparative democracies (sort of like comparative religions), discussing the similarities and differences between democracies that work. The main question that Dahl asks is, "Why should we feel bound today by a document produced more than two centuries ago by a group of fifty-five mortal men, actually signed by only thirty-nine, a fair number of whom were slaveholders, and adopted in only thirteen states by the votes of fewer than two thousand men, all of whom are long since dead and mainly forgotten?" Chapter 3 is the most interesting part of this book, where Dahl compares the American constitution to other democratic governments. "[A]mong the countries most comparable to the United States...not one has adopted our American constitutional system. It would be fair to say that without a single exception they have all rejected it. Why?" Dahl explores this question with respect to the American bicameral chambers (House and Senate), unequal representation (in the Senate), judicial review, the electoral system, two-party systems, and the presidental system. He discusses how the American system works versus other democracies, comparatively pointing out strengths and weaknesses. Overall I found this a stimulating, well-written, and deep book that looks at fundamental questions about American democracy that few people seem to be asking. Unlike other authors, however, he doesn't do this in a pessimistic manner, criticizing the American system needlessly. It was more of "we've done pretty well all things considered, but we can do better, and we should strive to do better."
Rating:
Summary: Let there be light
Review: In this short but succinctly worded treatise, Dahl proposes what thinkers from all points on the political spectrum have known all along. Because the US consitution is created by human beings (themsevles flawed) the doccument is perpetually imperfect, no matter how hard we insist otherwise. Rather, the weight of the constitution comes from the people's belief in it as the Supreme doccument of the land. Assuming the clout of a religious icon, this doccument is imbued with otherworldly presumptions and connotations. What the book lacks for in length, is more than compensated for in the highly informative and well-written text. For a refreshing look at government today, be sure to check out this book.
Rating:
Summary: Thought-provoking and bold but still realistic
Review: Some other reviewers have citicized this book with the non-sequitur that the US is "a republic, not a democracy." A republic is simply a representative democracy. The Founders feared a system in which a majority of the population could empower their representatives to do whatever the majority so pleases. To prevent such a nightmare they proposed limits on government power. Although they feared the unchecked will of the majority, they all agreed that the "will of the people" was a better source of power than any alternative. Anybody who recites from rote the "Republic, not a democracy" mantra to ward off any discussion of perfecting our form of government is forgetting that the preamble to the Constitution speaks of a "more perfect union", not "a perfect union." That said, the question Dahl raises is why no other government in the world is quite like ours. He makes it clear that the Framers had good ideas, but suggests that other nations have improved on the excellent baseline model established by the Framers. That is a very reasonable proposition. Ironically, much of the innovation seen in other nations consists of solutions to problems that our Framers thought they had solved. The Framers feared "faction", because blind partisanship is clearly a bad thing. Ironically, a failure to foresee and allow for the inevitable formation of parties has only exacerbated the effects of "faction." Dahl addresses the lack of proportional representation (PR), where each party gets seats in (at least one house of) the legislature in proportion to its share of the vote. The lack of PR leads to a two-party system. When you only have two parties, the inevitable result is rancor and polarization. Conversely, multi-party systems require coalitions, compromise, and negotiation. If the formation of parties in inevitable, I'd much prefer a system in which parties compromise and solve problems rather than demonize and obstruct. Also, Dahl points out that the Founders feared a popularly elected President because (a) they believed no national figure would emerge and (b) they feared that if one did emerge he would be a strong-man. They also rejected a Parliamentary system because they wanted checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches. However, the electoral college rapidly evolved into a crude accounting scheme for national campaigns, and Dahl explores the historical background to this evolution. He also points out that we now have Presidents with "mandates." This suggests that maybe our Executive branch is TOO independent. Finally, Dahl addresses the (sady, unchangeable) malapportionment of the Senate. He points out that revered advocates of limited government (e.g. Madison) opposed equal Senate representation for each state. In fact, Madison accused the small-state representatives of seeking power rather than liberty. Conservatives should be wary of any system that gives a small group huge power. Dahl argues persuasively that protection of minorities should look at ideological or political minorities, not minorities based on which state a person happens to live in. Ultimately, people should be free to organize politically with whomever they agree, and not be forced to organize their interests along artificial lines drawn by governments. Overall, Dahl does an excellent job of pointing out the areas where our Constitution needs a fine-tuning, and he brilliantly demolishes the political ancestor-worship underlying opposition to his critique.
Rating:
Summary: Sweet and Short
Review: The book is based on Dahl's lecture notes and is an easy read as an introduction to the less publicized information about the U.S. Constitution. Dahl provokes his readers to question what has been largely considered (still is) by the general public as a sacred document, flawless and free of human error. The constitution and the constitutional system which it creates is compared by Dahl against other constitutional systems of world democracies. Is our Constitution really the best viable?
| 
