The DOI matches its Crossref record.
How democratic is the American Constitution?
Abstract
In this provocative work, an American political scientist poses the question, Why should we uphold our constitution?. The vast majority of Americans venerate the American Constitution and the principles it embodies, but many also worry that the United States has fallen behind other nations on crucial democratic issues, including economic equality, racial integration and women's rights. Robert Dahl explores the vital tension between the Americans' belief in the legitimacy of their constitution and their belief in the principles of democracy. Dahl starts with the assumption that the legitimacy of the American Constitution derives solely from its utility as an instrument of democratic governance. Dahl demonstrates that, due to the context in which it was conceived, the constitution came to incorporate significant antidemocratic elements. Because the Framers of the Constitution had no relevant example of a democratic political system on which to model the American government, many defining aspects of the political system were implemented as a result of short-sightedness or last-minute compromise. Dahl highlights those elements of the American system that are most unusual and potentially antidemocratic: the federal system, the bicameral legislature, judicial review, presidentialism, and the electoral college system. The political system that emerged from the world's first great democratic experiment is unique - no other well-established democracy has copied it. How does the American constitutional system function in comparison to other democratic systems? How could the political system be altered to achieve more democratic ends? To what extent did the Framers of the Constitution build features into the political system that militate against significant democratic reform? Refusing to accept the status of the American Constitution as a sacred text, Dahl challenges America to think critically about the origins of its political system and to consider the opportunities for creating a more democratic society.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
(2005) · Cited by 3,670
Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence
Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2001) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790881 · Cited by 2,596
The Concept of Representation in Contemporary Democratic Theory
Urbinati, N., & Warren, M. E. (2008) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053006.190533 · Cited by 956
Democracy and the Limits of Self-Government
Przeworski, A. (2010) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511778490 · Cited by 638
The Endurance of National Constitutions
Ginsburg, T., Elkins, Z., & Melton, J. (2009) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2190476 · Cited by 453
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 2002-09-01
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 01
- Pages
- 40-0581-40-0581
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W1554466486
- Cited by
- 550
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How democratic is the American Constitution? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.40-0581
- The paper
- How democratic is the American Constitution? (2002). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.40-0581
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.