Thursday, December 1, 2016

Filtered Democracy - A Constitution of Compromises

Those even marginally familiar with the United States Constitution and the process of its creation understand that is a document of compromises. Some of the compromises are famous, or perhaps infamous; two that come instantly to mind are the 3/5 compromise and the “Great Compromise”, the latter being the agreement that gave us our two-house legislative branch structured as it is, and selected as it was before the 17th Amendment.

What many do not completely understand is the reason for all of these compromises in a more specific sense than simply chocking it all up to “politics”, and the first step in gaining that understanding is to become aware of the structure and circumstances of the United States of America at the time of the Constitutional Convention.  That structure was not of a nation at all, but rather of thirteen nations loosely banded together to win a war for independence that was now four years behind them and no longer providing the epoxy mixed of danger and patriotism that had held them together, however imperfectly.  The glue was cracking along sectional seams, with New England, the Middle States, and the Southern States showing signs of creating three separate alliances.  Everyone knew that such an arrangement would inevitably lead to war, and to make the situation even more perilous the major European powers were hovering and hoping for exactly such conflict so they could sweep in and divide up the continent.

With these political realities in mind, and with the blessing of the Continental Congress, most of the States agreed to send delegates to a convention in Philadelphia to shore up the anemic Articles of Confederation, the formal document that defined the weak social compact that existed between the States.  But while some of the delegates were thinking new Constitution, the State Assemblies that sent them to Philadelphia were not.  Only very slight additional powers for the Continental Congress, such as a limited power to levy taxes from the States, was what almost everyone had in mind.  The former colonies were newly independent, loosely confederated nation states whose citizens had no desire to create a central government in America with any powers comparable to the British government they had so recently cast off at the price of much blood, treasure and turmoil.  And this sentiment was most acute in the smaller states that feared being politically overwhelmed by their larger, more populous, neighbors; tiny Rhode Island actually refused to send delegates to the Convention and was the last to ratify the Constitution, doing so only when the hand-writing on the wall was undeniable. 

When it became clear at the Convention that a new constitution was actually the goal, there was universal agreement that the government would be in the form of a constitutional republic; theocracy was never considered and democracy universally shunned as both impractical and undesirable.  But the exact form of the republic was not easy to agree upon; nearly four months were spent hammering out compromises.

It was generally understood that a majority of the States in each of the three regions must agree to the new Constitution in order for it to be viable.  New England and the Middle States agreeing while excluding the South would not do; the Middle States and the South agreeing without New England would fail as well.  Compromises acceptable to at least a majority of the states from each region were absolutely necessary or the result would be disunion and inevitable war.  Slavery was tolerated by delegates who generally found it intolerable; delegates who wanted the central government to have almost no power agreed to give it more than they were comfortable with; delegates who wanted the voice of “The People” at large to speak through the power of a strong central government agreed to retain a significant portion of State sovereignty. Everyone compromised.

Each of the three regions had large, populous States, but each also had many low population States and these had to be accommodated.  These smaller States were being asked to give up One State, One Vote equality under the Articles of Confederation, and they were not about to agree to a formula of representation based purely on population that would completely subordinate them to the big States.  The “Great Compromise” gave small States equal representation in the U.S. Senate and allowed that the Senators be selected by the State legislatures, while members of the House of Representatives were made proportional to State populations and directly elected by the people of each State.  Each State’s allotment of delegates to the Electoral College that selects the President was made equal in number to the State’s representatives in The House of Representatives plus the two Senators from each State.  This formula gives slightly disproportionate representation in the selection of the President to the smaller States.  The larger States did not agree to these compromises lightly, but they were absolutely necessary to bring the small States on board, a necessity because there was still to be a One State, One Vote election, and that was for ratification of the new Constitution.  It was agreed that nine of the thirteen States must ratify before the Constitution would be adopted, and further understood that unanimous ratification was highly desirable. 

In what might be called a “pure republic” every citizen would be equally represented in the bodies that make the laws and select the executive.  This is not the case in the government created by the United States Constitution, and not all of the deviations from “pure republic” were arrived at by hard fought compromise; some were more universally accepted and deemed desirable by most of the delegates.  They were very aware of what John Adams would call “Tyranny of the Majority”, and specifically designed a constitution that would protect minorities – in a sense that’s what the Constitutional is all about. 

During the ratification process and beyond, constitutional cheerleaders like Madison and Hamilton put positive spin onto every article and section of the Constitution, the unavoidable compromises no less so than the well designed safeguards. In some cases it’s difficult for us to know which features of the Constitution fall into which category, but the result is what has been called “filtered democracy” meaning that The People were in charge, but not directly so.  In addition to the basic representative nature of the government, various cleverly designed “filters” removed the choosing of some officials and the making of law from the momentary whims or knee jerk reactions of The People.  Many of these filters have already been briefly mentioned:  Senators were chosen by State legislatures, not directly by the people; the President was chosen by “Electors” who were elected by The People, but would presumably vote their consciences and were not constitutionally bound to vote for The People’s choice. Constitutional amendment or State laws have eliminated these particular filters. 

Among the filters that remain are those that provide slightly disproportionate clout to the smaller States in Congress and in the Electoral College.  The smaller States are also protected in the constitutional amendment process which requires three-fourths of the State legislatures to agree before any amendment to the Constitution is adopted, with the small States having an equal vote. It might be argued that such filters should go the way of the 3/5 compromise that is obviously not relevant in 21st century America, but it must be remembered that the purpose of these filters, whether arrived at by bitter compromise or by judicious philosophical agreement, and of the Constitution itself, is to protect minorities from the Tyranny of the Majority. This nation would not be viable if dominated by the political philosophies of its major population centers. To rural America it would be, or at least appear, the exact situation that so many early Americans feared, a tyrannical, corrupt government no better than the British monarchy. What’s truly amazing is that more than two centuries and 37 States of all sizes later, the delicate balance created in a chaos of desperate compromise between big, medium, and small States remains intact with no region or demography consistently dominating.

Links to related reading:

No comments:

Post a Comment