[neo4sure]

The author makes sense initially but towards the end seems to be attacking American institutions like the Supreme court. That was odd.

America was founded on a messy system where not everyone got what they wanted. It was always a compromise.

However, this messy system did bring us out of slavery into the modern era. Now though one of the last abominations of this messy system is causing most of the issues in the republic. I wonder why the author does not touch the subject of "Electoral College".

The "Electoral College" elected both "George Bush" and "Trump" subverting the will of the majority. The first president led us into an illegal war that enriched his corporate buddies. The second one will be judged by history.

In my opinion, until we get rid of the "Electoral College" America will never be a true democracy.

[belorn]

Very few countries operates on a majoritarian voting system, and the reason is often related to civil wars. If the highest populated areas has a overwhelming dominating majority then the low population loose confidence that their vote maters and is simply a wasted exercise. Too much of that and you get civil wars and nations that split into smaller ones that each operates more efficiently towards the needs of those living in each of those areas.

A big example of those is not a nation but rather EU parliament. Citizens of the smallest country count twice as much influence as the biggest country, and the reason is rather obvious to keep those members states interested to be part of the union even if the voting power is going to be minuscule compared to the big countries. Even so the sell is a tough one.

[emodendroket]

Judicial review was invented by Federalists specifically to subvert Jefferson really. It's in some sense an antidemocratic institution.

[dragonwriter]

> Judicial review was invented by Federalists specifically to subvert Jefferson really.

Judicial review is simply the concrete manifestation of two things express in the Constitution:

(1) the judicial power regarding cases and controversies arising under the Constitution, laws, etc., and

(2) The Constitution’s express limits on what laws Congress has the power to pass.

It's anti-democratic in the sense that Constitutionally-limited government is itself anti-democratic, in that the electre representatives of the people are denied the unlimited power they would have in a parliamentary supremacy model, but not in any other sense.

[emodendroket]

I don't like treating the development of ideas like they just sprung from the ether devoid of masters or historical context. Certainly it can be seen as flowing from those principles, but it came to exist in a particular circumstance -- namely, when Federalists thought raving Jeffersonian Democrats were going to ruin the whole republic with too much democracy and invented a legal theory that said they could throw out their laws.

[neo4sure]

This is my whole point, it's a messy system. You can weigh the Electoral College and Supreme court then, decide which one is more anti-democratic?

[emodendroket]

Why do I have to choose? Both are in fact intended to be anti-democratic. Our collective admiration for the Founding Fathers makes it hard for us to wrap our heads around this, but it's reality -- the Constitution is largely a document intended to limit, not encourage, popular sovereignty.