What concerns me is the “sanctimonious reverence.” What alarms me is the propensity of those who know better to mobilize that reverence in opposition to democratization – whether disingenuously or because they really don’t know that much of our institutional exceptionalism is the product of “getting the thing out the door by September 17.”

I agree with a lot of your comment. Obviously a truly democratic state was still born in America, but our government has gradually evolved and become more democratic. Many of the issues you raised have been changed to become more democratic, but I agree that the direct election of the US president should be changed.

Yes, change is slow and difficult, but I think that is also a strength of our system. Change, especially constitutional and institutional change is excruciatingly slow in America. But is that bad? Sometimes, I think it is. The breakdown of the Union and resulting Civil War is testament to that, as is the delayed implementation of federally enforced voting rights protections and women’s suffrage.

But slow change can sometimes be a good thing. It requires a long, debate process within in a society about the potential pros and cons of significant institutional change. Furthermore, in our system, for constitutional amendments to be passed requires expansive mobilization of people on many different levels of government. Too often democratic states that do not have such drawn out constitutional alternation deteriorate when a charismatic individual is able to harness waves of public opinion and popularity to alter institutions for their benefit. A la Putin and Hugo.

Anyway, this may a be a bit of a b.s. argument on my part, but I think there may be something to it. Democratic institutions should be organized in such a way to permit flexibility and evolution with changing social norms, but not so easily altered as to give way to the whims of strong individuals.

Around the 2/3 mark, Prof. Shugart cites Jefferson:

Even more, Jefferson warned against what he referred to as “sanctimonious reverence” for the Constitution and its founders.

If we use Constitution Day, and other patriotic commemorations, as an opportunity for “sanctimonious reverence,” we as a nation are idolators–as any student of Jewish history and the Bible will know, one of the worst of all sins.”

You are right that we should be proud of a document radical for its time, that became ‘standard text’ for later practitioners interested in building democratic republics.

That form of government, democratic republic, implies two metrics by which we can judge the document.

Taking a Rousseauist look at the republican metric, we are a people that “loves its laws.” That is a testament to the document, its place in the American consciousness and the durability both bring to the country. For better or worse.

By the democratic metric, significant chunks of the Constitution were a failure, and the story of American history has been one of gradual democratization.

A 3/5 compromise. An unelected Senate. A malapportioned Senate. A president electable by anything short of a direct vote: from state-based coin-toss, to selection by representatives twice-removed, to state-based proportional allocation of electors.

Some of the most undemocratic features of the document have been the hardest to democratize. They were put there to be undemocratic. And they were put there not due to informed consensus, but because of the need for sectional compromise – the need to get the thing out the door.

Elite compromise seems to be a near-universal stage in the process of democratic institution-building. If all goes well, time revises the compromises, and the outcome can be more democracy.

Have we stalled?