Rating: 
Summary: MIddle of the Road
Review: The constitution and constitutional law have always interested me. Further, it has always seemed to me that the cliche "We're not a democracy. We're a democratic republic," was always a subterfuge for denying (while acknowledging) a paradoxical truism. Dahl's extended essay goes a long way in showing that to be correct. Are we more of a republic or a democracy. Dahl thinks that we have more elements of the former. Using the electoral college, "first past the post" as opposed to proportional senate representation, and the fact that the senate and the president (in the original constitution) were more-or-less picked by federal and state legislatures. So in this sense, as that of any good history book, the founders were not the believers in democracy that high school civics has us believe. Through all of this, Dahl makes some interesting suggestions. Why shouldn't the senate be abolished. It's raison d'etat, after all, seems to be to give unequal representation (2 members per state regardless of size), and create a more 'enlightened' (6 years, 35 yr. of age minimum) house. But why couldn't a unicameral system, used in most democratic countries, work? Also, he proposes that any house be proportionally represented. Parties send out ballots with a list of candidates, people vote for the party they'd like to see, and each party seats according to percentage of votes. Biproduct? This would get rid of our dead-horse two party system. He suggests some others, but I don't want to spoil the suprise. Still, Dahl's book is quite flawed. It is extremely one sided. Dahl doesn't even try to give arguments for the electoral college. Well, first, there's the very fact that we are the UNITED STATES of America. If we went by straight popular vote, the state lines would become a mere formality and we might-as-well federalize the whole process. While I agree that it should be set up proportionally rather than winner-take-the-state, it is important, especially during elections, to treat states as sacrosanct entities, not just inconveniences. Dahl talks a lot about the Federalist, but has he read the Anti-Federalist, where a lot of these arguments are made (and ironcially, it is chock full of the democratic sentiment Dahl so admires). Final flaw - Honestly, Dahl did not do enough explaining as to why democracy is worth striving for. To some, it may seem self evident but often they confuse the concept of civic equality, freedoms of speech and press, and material equality with democracy. In fact, Dahl gets these confused constantly. Especially in the last chapter where, when he asks "is democracy desirable?" he answers "Yes, civic equality is desirable" but fails to answer the question asked. All in all, this book is insightful, challenging, and worth reading (It won't take long). Just make sure you take Dahl's comments at face value. It may be good to counter some of the arguments with those found in the Ant-Federalist papers.
Rating:
Summary: MIddle of the Road
Review: The constitution and constitutional law have always interested me. Further, it has always seemed to me that the cliche "We're not a democracy. We're a democratic republic," was always a subterfuge for denying (while acknowledging) a paradoxical truism. Dahl's extended essay goes a long way in showing that to be correct. Are we more of a republic or a democracy. Dahl thinks that we have more elements of the former. Using the electoral college, "first past the post" as opposed to proportional senate representation, and the fact that the senate and the president (in the original constitution) were more-or-less picked by federal and state legislatures. So in this sense, as that of any good history book, the founders were not the believers in democracy that high school civics has us believe. Through all of this, Dahl makes some interesting suggestions. Why shouldn't the senate be abolished. It's raison d'etat, after all, seems to be to give unequal representation (2 members per state regardless of size), and create a more 'enlightened' (6 years, 35 yr. of age minimum) house. But why couldn't a unicameral system, used in most democratic countries, work? Also, he proposes that any house be proportionally represented. Parties send out ballots with a list of candidates, people vote for the party they'd like to see, and each party seats according to percentage of votes. Biproduct? This would get rid of our dead-horse two party system. He suggests some others, but I don't want to spoil the suprise. Still, Dahl's book is quite flawed. It is extremely one sided. Dahl doesn't even try to give arguments for the electoral college. Well, first, there's the very fact that we are the UNITED STATES of America. If we went by straight popular vote, the state lines would become a mere formality and we might-as-well federalize the whole process. While I agree that it should be set up proportionally rather than winner-take-the-state, it is important, especially during elections, to treat states as sacrosanct entities, not just inconveniences. Dahl talks a lot about the Federalist, but has he read the Anti-Federalist, where a lot of these arguments are made (and ironcially, it is chock full of the democratic sentiment Dahl so admires). Final flaw - Honestly, Dahl did not do enough explaining as to why democracy is worth striving for. To some, it may seem self evident but often they confuse the concept of civic equality, freedoms of speech and press, and material equality with democracy. In fact, Dahl gets these confused constantly. Especially in the last chapter where, when he asks "is democracy desirable?" he answers "Yes, civic equality is desirable" but fails to answer the question asked. All in all, this book is insightful, challenging, and worth reading (It won't take long). Just make sure you take Dahl's comments at face value. It may be good to counter some of the arguments with those found in the Ant-Federalist papers.
Rating:
Summary: Not Dahl's best
Review: This book was fascinating, but written from what I perceived to be a left wing bias. (Which is fine, freedom of thought is a cherished American belief.)Professor Dahl makes several good points. Personally, I think the Electoral College is long overdue for abolition, and I'm not hostile to the idea of abolishing the Senate and establishing a unicameral legislature. However, I'm not convinced the US should adopt proportional representation. (Although perhaps the first-past-the-post system could be modified. For example, a run off election if no candidate garners more than 50% of the vote.) Professor Dahl has little use for our Presidential system, but doesn't adequately explain to me why we should have both a President and Prime Minister. I liked this book. It is what it was intended to be....thought provoking. However I tend to disagree with some of his prescriptions.
Rating: 
Summary: Good But Not Deep Enough
Review: This is a good book and would serve as a great reading requirement for a college Political Science 101- American Government course. However, that is about the level that this book is written at, people who are knowledgeable about the Consitituion and the Constitutional Convention may find this book lacking in information and ideas that are not obvious. Also, the book is rather short for a topic about which seemingly so much could have been written. I recommend the book as a good read and it offers a slightly different approach to discussion of the Constitution. College professors who teach introductory American Government courses should require that this book be read.
| 
