The Law of Democracy [No. 86]
Articles,  Blog

The Law of Democracy [No. 86]


So one of the oddities of the US Constitution
is how little it has about the mechanics of ah the democratic process itself. There are some rules. Ah we know, for example,
that the states uh are going to decide for themselves how to do districts, how to conduct
elections, what the voter qualifications are going to be, subject to uh Congress’ uh ability
to pass supervening legislation regarding the governance of of federal elections. Uh
but that’s not a lot, that doesn’t tell us how districts are going to be formed. We do know a very important thing, which is
how often elections are going to be, and that itself is a a huge advance, right? The uh
fact that we hold regular elections rather than allowing governments just to stay in
power forever is a huge uh advance for democracy. Uh but a lot went unspecified. I think if
we were to write a constitution today we would be almost certain to include provisions about
things like candidate selection, are we going to have a primary system or not. Probably we would be interested in constitutionally
specifying ah single member districts and first past the post elections, and our presidential
elections would probably would not be governed by the electoral college. I don’t know that
for sure, but I doubt that would pass uh today if we were to be starting from scratch. So, a lot of the law what we call the Law
of Democracy when we teach this in law schools, is the product of long standing practice and
of judicial innovation rather than actual interpretation of the Constitution.

4 Comments

  • Joseph Smyth

    Democracy is related to Hegelian Dialectic which deals in abstract. Unless things are done with objective truth, there is not enough material and matter to ground society in Natural Law and reality. Communism has infiltrated the education system and the only way out is the 7 liberal arts and sciences

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *