A More Perfect Constitution: 23 Proposals to Revitalize Our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country

by Larry J. Sabato

A More Perfect Constitution: 23 Proposals to Revitalize Our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Law, History, Political Science, Government, The United States Of America

352 pages, Hardcover

First published October 2, 2007

About the author

Larry Joseph Sabato is an American political scientist and political analyst. He is the Robert Kent Gooch Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia, where he is also the founder and director of the Center for Politics, which works to promote civic engagement and participation. The Center for Politics is also responsible for the publication of Sabato's Crystal Ball, an online newsletter and website that provides free political analysis and electoral projections.
He is well known in American political media as a popular pundit, and is interviewed frequently by a variety of sources.
Sabato grew up in Norfolk, Virginia, graduating from Norfolk Catholic High School in 1970. Four years later, he graduated from the University of Virginia. A 1974 Cavalier Daily poll showed more people could identify Sabato as student government president than could name Edgar Finley Shannon Jr. as University president. Sabato graduated Phi Beta Kappa as a Government major. He followed his undergraduate degree with graduate study at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs for one year. He was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship in 1975, which brought him to study at Queen's College, Oxford. In less than two years he earned his doctorate in politics from Oxford.
Prior to his time as a political analyst, Sabato worked for nine years with Virginia Democratic Party politician Henry Howell. At the age of 15, Sabato joined Howell's first campaign for the Virginia governorship in 1968, and then worked on his successful run for lieutenant governor in 1971, and his campaigns for governor in 1973 and 1977.
Sabato is of Italian heritage.
Before becoming an academic at the University of Virginia, Sabato published works on the rise of two-party politics in the southern United States, most notably his 1977 publication of The Democratic Party Primary in Virginia: Tantamount to Election No Longer. In 1978, Sabato became a member of the faculty at the University of Virginia. Since then he has engaged in research and taught more than 14,000 students.
He is a University Professor and the Robert Kent Gooch Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia.
In 2005, Sabato made a $1 million contribution to UVA, the largest gift ever given by a faculty member.
Sabato is the author of over twenty books on politics, including Feeding Frenzy: Attack Journalism and American Politics and The Rise of Political Consultants: New Ways of Winning Elections. He is the co-author of Dirty Little Secrets: The Persistence of Corruption in American Politics with Glenn R. Simpson.
In January 2011, he published Pendulum Swing, which analyzed the 2010 midterm elections and the potential effect of Republican Party victories on the 2012 presidential, congressional, and state-level elections.
Prior to Pendulum Swing, Sabato authored The Year of Obama in 2009 and A More Perfect Constitution in 2007, which discussed his ideas for amending the U.S. Constitution. Other Sabato books include The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency, Divided States of America: The Slash and Burn Politics of the 2004 Presidential Election, and Get in the Booth! A Citizen's Guide to the 2004 Election, and writes for Sabato's Crystal Ball. He has written textbooks used by high school and college American government classes, and has been a frequent guest analyst on cable news outlets and radio programs.
His book The Kennedy Half-Century: The Presidency, Assassination, and Lasting Legacy of John F. Kennedy was published in 2013. It focuses on John F. Kennedy's life, administration, and assassination and contains research from focus groups, polling, and interviews with colleagues and eyewitnesses. After analyzing evidence regarding the assassination, Sabato discredited the 1979 United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) conclusion of a possible second shooter, stating that it was "blown out the w

Reviews

[Amy Frandsen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Super interesting book with suggestions of how the constitution could be updated for our time. The author is really good about describing the Founding Fathers’ original intent, how the US has changed in the past 230+ years, and what could be changed (in line with the original intent) to serve the country better. I didn’t agree with every change but there are a lot that make sense and it’s interesting to think about.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Let me start out by saying that I liked this book. It was not outstanding in how it made me think new things, but it did provide grounding for its ideas and present good historical and political arguments for change. The writing was largely approachable but still scholarly.

I do not agree with all the proposals, but definitely agree that on the whole most would be more beneficial than the current system. The book is written more to convince you that some change along the lines Sabato presents is warranted, less so that his proposed amendments are the best possible versions of the changes. There is more political arguments focusing on historical views and happenings than on a set of similar alternatives that might have better results in the future. And this is in line with the book's goal, to advocate for change, not to specify exactly what change should be. Sabato is not, strictly speaking, proposing actual amendments, with full text versions and clause-by-clause analysis, but rather making an argument for certain general changes to be specified by others.

All proposed changes are structural, centrist, and somewhat conservative--not in a right vs left sense, but rather in that they preserve and reapply foundational principles underlying the founder's original intentions to a very different world, rather than seeking new principles or novel applications of them. They do not try to upset aspects of our national government that still work, even if they work in ways that are marginally unfair or could be significantly improved; something must be manifestly counter to the public interest rather than merely having occasional negative outcomes or consequences.

All changes are structural rather than content driven. There is no talk about whether to expand or curtail the power of the federal government, only shuffling the balance of power (on the matters of war-making and line-item vetoes), and otherwise tweak term lengths, limits, congressional size. Other than a call for a universal national service, all his proposed changes are directed at the federal government itself, not at the rights of the people or the states. He intentionally avoids controversial topics such as abortion, gun rights, definitions of marriage, etc..

You can see his full list here: http://www.amoreperfectconstitution.c...

Highlights:
Finite Federal Judge Term Lengths
Line-Item Veto
Term Limits
Larger House and more Senators for more populous states
More competitive and impartially drawn House districts
Balanced Budget
Automatic voter registration
Campaign Finance Reform
National Service
Regular Conventions to propose Amendments

Major disappointments (that is, ideas or topics I expected to see proposed, discussed, or at least referenced) include:
1. No reference, at all, to ranked-choice voting, or alternatives to the current single-member house districts, or anything else that might upset a system of single-choice first-past-the-post geographically based system of elections, despite how reductionist they are regarding the public's views. Since Sabato proposes electing all Senators at the same time, and that some states get 3-4 Senators, RCV would actually allow residents of virtually every state who are either Democrat or Republican to always have someone from their state representing their views in the Senate. So many potential benefits (and some complexity and acknowledged downsides) are just completely ignored.
2. No alternative to reinforcing the duopoly that is America's two party system. Indeed, Sabato is convinced of the importance of the two party system and seems to want to silence or eliminate third parties entirely, letting a sway of 51-49 to 49-51 Democrat to Republican or vice versa completely change the entire political landscape in an area, state, or country. A two party system, according to him, is a strong and necessary stabilizing force lest we fractionalize our polity into single issue sectional small parties that for some reason would be ineffectual or dangerous (despite their presence and role in government in the vast majority of democracies in the world). And though Sabato seems to appreciate the role that Progressivism at the beginning of the 1900s played in getting several constitutional amendments passed, and the Ross Perot Campaign in calling attention to the need to balance the budget, he intentionally wants to keep all debate and discussion within the existent two parties rather than rock the boat.
2. No anti-rider amendment. Sabato talks about line item vetoes for their ability to cut down pork-barrel spending, but does not seem as concerned about the role of riders (to be fair, riders would be subject to line-time vetoes, but that is a separate question). Sabato notes that 43/50 states have line-time veto for their governors, but does not also note that 43/50 states have single-subject rules that prevent riders. A president striking riders would cause political turmoil, while one not doing so when they have the power to could have the same effect (think about a pro-choice president striking or not striking the Hyde Amendment barring federal funding of most elective abortions). Single subject laws prevent that possibility in most states, and should in the federal government as well.
3. The popular vote for president (which is mentioned but dismissed in two pages), rather than mending the electoral college (larger, no faithless electors, etc.). Sabato claims this is the best way to keep recounts local, reinforce the two party system, respect federalism, and seems completely fine that a popular winner could still lose occasionally (although less likely with the reforms he proposes, including expanding the number of electors, though Al Gore's popular vote winning margin of over 540,000 would still translate to an electoral victory margin of just 1 vote.). Why not just have an amendment requiring states to submit popular vote totals rather than electors, forcing recounts to be local? And ranked choice voting to ensure an actual popular winner is always guaranteed, instead of risking throwing an election "spoiled" by a third party candidate actually getting votes (and so ensuring no majority winner) to the House of Representatives, whether or not they vote as individuals or state blocks?
4. Keeping the prestige of the Senate. The Senate has more powers in terms of confirmation of judges and ratification of treaties than the House, and yet it is heavily tilted toward the less populous states (and thus its representation of the average US person violates the one-person, one-vote principle Sabato touts inconsistently). True, Sabato wants to make the Senate less (un)equal by giving some populous states have 3-4 votes instead of 2, but that just means that residents of California each have only 1/35th the Senators of Wyoming residents rather than 1/70th. Perhaps the Senate should still represent the States by some numerical formula rather than the people, but why not spread its special powers out to the House, so that both houses of Congress need to approve such things, or perhaps the President can pick one house to confirm appointments (and maybe the other can veto by a small supermajority, so you can confirm a federal judge with 51% of the House unless 60% of the Senate says no, and vice versa). Why perpetuate the less democratic Senate having more authority?
5. "National Senators" sound like a good thing! How about they be elected nationally, not just former presidents/VPs? (and why do they get to serve for life, when we just talked about limiting federal judge terms being limited because serving for life risks them being out of touch?) Why not award the position to several runners-up in each presidential contest to the Senate for terms equal to the president's term, that way there is no fully disenfranchised minority each presidential election? Whereas currently nearly half of the country has to sit by and watch someone they did not vote for lead the country for four-eight years, while someone who came pretty close to filling that role is left on the side of the road as just a private citizen. The original idea of VP being the runner up in presidential votes would be have a spiritual successor, allowing non-plurality candidates, and those who voted for them, a significant voice in government. We could have 4-20 such National Senators, popularly elected by the nation, with no disenfranchised minority, and maybe even party limits on their number so that third party candidates would be significantly represented nationally for the first time. Seriously, there are many wholly disenfranchised groups of individuals who cannot elect a single representative to the national government since they are spread too thin. Wait, Sabato likes the two party duopoly, and decried parliamentary systems where 5% of the national vote means one actually gets national representation in a legislature (which is odd when, given that we have 435 Representatives, with many elected by slim margins, it would appear that only the support of 0.2% of the national populace is needed for each Representative to earn their spot). Nationally there are more Green Party members and Libertarian Party members each than the entire population of Wyoming; nevertheless, Wyoming residents get representation nationally because of a geographic coincidence. You could also lessen the temptation of and need for the Free State Project and the like, urging like-minded people to emigrate en masse to one low-population state in an attempt to finally have some control over their own governance. If the principle behind "one-person, one-vote" is that government officials represent people, not trees or land, than why not apply that same idea of representing people rather than land on the national scale, to allow more than two persons sharing one party ticket to be nationally elected to the government each four years?
6. Still requiring Amendments, even those approved by a constitutional convention, to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, without mentioning any alternatives. Again, the one-person-one-vote principle gets sacrificed to preserve the status quo, which given the unequal populations of the states means that . How about ratification by enough states to represent 3/4 of the population? And why should the states be the sole ratifiers rather than the people? The constitution gave the states the right to appoint senators and presidential electors, but the people do those jobs now. Why not require each state at its next election to put each proposed amendment on the ballot, needing 60% approval of the people nationwide, or 3/4 of state governments, or state governments representing 3/4 of the people, in order to pass? Sabato talked about "popular democracy" here and there being the reason for many changes to the constitution, but never with regard to actual amending, except as a non-binding test referendum on ideas that might lead to proposed amendments.
7. No talk about federal voting representation for territories. This is just general injustice, "taxation without representation", which Sabato seeks to rectify only in DC for some reason. DC has a larger population than 2 states, it is true, but Puerto Rico has a larger population than 20(!) states, and does not get voting voice in Congress, and does not have a voice in the presidential election, even though DC does.
8. No reference to the Equal Rights Amendment. Not even one. Sabato is steering clear of amendment proposals that are controversial and are more social-content than government-structure, I know. It did not have to be a proposal of his, and one could argue that the ERA is less needed as subsequent legislation has addressed major inequities (though I certainly would not), but inasmuch as he is talking so many different proposed amendments that passed or failed or were sunseted, to never at least touch upon this one clear and recent example of the process and what we can/should learn from it is striking and hugely disappointing. (Also, if I recall correctly he tends to use male language when referring to elected officials, most notably the president and VP, even in abstract and with reference to future office holders; this may be accurate historically, but all the sadder for that, and all the worse for a message that is supposed to talk about fixing historical assumptions and preconceptions that do not hold in the modern world. Sabato paid lip service to representative diversity as a reason to increase the Supreme Court size, but did not mention any reforms to better get representative diversity in Congress or the White House)

This book was written in 2007, before Obama and Trump. Perhaps we can forgive Sabato for not presciently considering the following ideas then:

9. Require votes on presidential nominations for civil and judicial positions within a certain period of time (sure, Merrick Garland would have been turned down by a Republican Senate, that is their constitutional role, just require them to hold the vote within two months of nomination)
10. Specifying more explicitly what constitutes impeachment, including a longer non-exhaustive list of offenses, as well as the process of the impeachment trial, subpeona power of Congress vs executive privilege, standards of evidence, burden of proof, etc. Did Obama commit impeachable offenses regarding his selective enforcement of the ACA provisions, given that he is tasked to "faithfully execute the laws"? Did Trump when he made phone calls and talked about investigating Hunter Biden or finding votes in Georgia? The vagueness of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" leaves far too much up to argumentation and partisan posturing when it comes to the president, rather than action (or, when appropriate, inaction). Also, the constitution should be clear about whether those seeking office or those who formally held office can be impeached and tried to disqualify them from future office holding.
11. Limit the presidential pardoning power to not cover the president, family, or those acting on the president's orders, in their interests, or in concert with their wishes (thankfully this has not been directly tested yet, nor is it likely to these days, but it would still be good to eliminate the possibility and uncertainty).

I know this is a review of Larry Sabato's book, and yet I spend much space writing about what is NOT in the book. But when you talk about reforming the foundational document of a nation, what you do not say is as important as what you do say. I do appreciate how Sabato's website regarding his 23 proposals includes a link for you to submit your suggestions for a "24th". One wonders if he will write a follow-up. But the major idea, that the Constitution needs some updating and we should make it happen, is well-argued and well-taken. Hence, four out of five stars.

[Melissa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sabato makes several excellent proposals for amending the Constitution and some proposals that are not quite as stellar. I love the idea of adding more Senators to the most populated states, creating a 15 year term limit for federal judges, and instituting regional presidential primaries. I’m less enamored with a single six-year presidential term with a possibility of a two-year extension (too needlessly complicated) or the idea of “generous” term limits for members of Congress (too vague). But I must confess that the idea of calling a Constitutional Convention fills me with terror. Sabato is full of faith and idealism for his fellow Americans. He describes modern-day Americans as pragmatic, moderate, and well-educated. Those people do exist, but our country is also full of a lot of bozos. Sabato even concludes with the “fun fact” that significantly more Americans can name the Three Stooges than can name the three branches of government. His argument that the Constitution could use some adjustments to fit the 21st century is convincing, if simultaneously terrifying.

[Bill · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm giving this book five stars for its clear writing and the attention to addressing the weak parts in each of its proposals. I am reading this ten years after its initial publication, and many of the critiques Sabato offers of governance in the Federal government have grown more obvious in the last decade.

No reader will agree with all of Sabato's 23 proposals for changing the way our government operates, but each one engages the reader and stimulates further thought.

[Broodingferret · Rating 4 out of 5]

While a bit dry, this book was both enjoyable and thought provoking. Sabato posits that the Constitution, while still a mostly-working triumph of liberal democratic thought, is designed primarily for a less educated agricultural past and would benefit from several modifications based on both modern concerns and the insights gained from 200+ years of trial-and-error implementation. Sabato's arguments, which are quite convincing and well-cited, focus on revamping the core functional structures of the government (i.e. the executive, legislative, and judicial branches), establishing a more representative and fair election process, and the establishment of a Bill of Responsibilities that would complement the Bill of Rights. For the most part, Sabato's suggested changes and approach to achieving them are moderate and concerned primarily with the fair and equitable representation and involvement of the people in the functioning of the United States. Also, Sabato recognizes that any major overhaul of the Constitution (let alone some of his specific ideas) won't happen overnight, and may take as long as a generation or so, a pleasant change from the desire for instant gratification that is usually apparent in many idealistic manifestos. Anyone with the slightest interest in modern American politics should read this book; while one may not agree with everything Sabato puts forth (I certainly don't), it makes for wonderful brain food.

[Holly · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book, it provoked some excellent debates about the state of the American Constitution today. Having been a foreigner in America for a year, I was under the impression that all Americans thought it was the greatest document ever produced and that it shouldn't be touched or altered at all. While I agree that it is a wonderful political instrument, it is nice to see that Sabato, and those who agree with him, know that there is room for improvement and alterations to modernise it and make it fit with today's America, especially those bits that have developed naturally over time, despite being stated in the Constitution. One for the cynics and patriots, just to get them to think about suitable alternatives.

[Joseph Bredesen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Best book on this topic and I've read essentially all of them.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

Being one not fond of much American political behavior, from antagonistic bumper stickers to superficial State of the Union addresses, I was somewhat intrigued to find that A More Perfect Constitution was assigned reading for my Political Science class.
Larry Sabato was not a name I was familiar with, so it surprised me to see that he is the author of more than 25 books as well as countless essays on politics. Sabato is also the University Professor of Politics and director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. As a Rhodes scholar, he has taught more than 15,000 students in his career at Oxford University, Cambridge University, and the University of Virginia. (http://www.larrysabato.com/)

As the book’s title suggests, and contrary to political religion, Sabato attacks this sacred cow, proposing that the United States Constitution is an imperfect document. Not only is it assumed to be imperfect, it is said to be in desperate need of repair. The title alone is enough for the most hardcore patriots to declare war on the author. But Sabato’s effort is to open the eyes of the populace and thereby trigger a nationally perceived need to address the subject. Patience and open-mindedness will reward the reader with a wealth of political information as well as a plain revealing of the weaknesses in our current structure. Wrenching of the gut may accompany reading for the more optimistic political observer, as copious amounts of corruption and filth are exposed in the pages of this book. It is important for the reader to keep in mind that Sabato does not intend this work to be comprehensive; rather he ‘bad lists’ only what he considers the most immediate and pressing concerns of our country’s founding papers. He openly acknowledges that there are more issues needing to be addressed than are contained in these pages.
In support of his plan to remodel the Constitution, is the assumption that the founders of our great nation could not possibly have foreseen what America would become over the following two hundred and thirty years. He also asserts that America, since the writing of this document, has inherited a wealth of political experience - enough to warrant some modifications to the document. As each subject matter is addressed and scrutinized, Sabato seeks to maintain the intent and views of the constitutional drafters in light of modern America. The founding fathers included and excluded things based on assumptions of their time, and since many of those assumptions are radically different today, the Constitution must be updated accordingly. This is no easy task. The book’s preamble is the author’s prompting and defense of these requisites and assumptions.
He claims that, for the most part, the changes advocated are structural, not ideological. They are articles that any Democrat, Republican, or third-party ideologue could comfortably embrace, knowing they are for he betterment of the country. This concept is reiterated throughout the pages, to remind the audience that government was created for the people. When government becomes a hindrance to the free movement of the people who established it, it is time to repair, remove, and/or replace the system for the continued benefit of the citizenry. This is ultimately the motivation of the author. He is attempting to stir the passions of the people to action and reclaim the rights and responsibilities that have gradually slipped into the hands of a relative few political fat-cat dominators.
Like any remodeling project, the first requirement is to remove the old, the broken, and the rotted measures, so that repairs may begin. This is often the messiest step. Fortunately, Sabato is not afraid to get his hands dirty. With little ado, he throws the curtains back on the dark recesses of the three major branches of leadership, exposing corruption and shortcomings, convincing the reader that there is far more work to be done than one might otherwise expect. As he peels away the cover on operations in the high places of our government, the need for reformation is revealed. The reader is left with few arguments against the facts presented. The faults and fissures that permeate our revered offices are enough to make one ill.
Congress sustains Sabato’s first attack, as he reveals the imbalance of representation and the alchemy behind congressional redistricting. Turning his attention to term limits, he expertly deals warranted blows to congress, the presidency, and the judiciary. He exposes the way many misuse their influences to crush opposition and remain in their comfortable positions of power. While our dear writer is not delicate in expressing the needs at hand, he is rather gentle in his recommendations for how to go about fixing the problems. Sabato is careful to not go overboard on surgery and patches, knowing that radical changes can have radical effects, many of which can never be predicted. He often drifts to what many would call the more conservative side, but then unexpectedly veers to the left on certain other issues, such as Universal National Service.

His blueprint for reconstruction of the Constitution is supported by historical examples of economic failings, social injustices, and the circumstances involved in both. With undeniable reason, he proclaims the positive social results his proposals are sure to bring. To summarize and bolster his position, Sabato boasts the financial benefits to his arrangements, adding that manipulation and corruption would diminish under the proposed plan. The author describes the legal wilderness that would be required to navigate to simply hold a constitutional convention. He then sketches a map to get the nation from here to there.
Though I see eye-to-eye with the author on many of the ideas tossed around (most of which were valiantly defended), the first four chapters ended rather anticlimactically. To his credit, Sabato has worked very hard on composing the starting point for discussion and debate regarding our shambled government. To the degree that it is possible to present a motion to the population with the intent of changing minds and unifying people in a common cause, Sabato is most effective and highly deserving of applause.
However, at times he seems to simply poke at some of his own ideas with hesitating question, as if hunting for opposition to his concepts. One may wonder whether he is fully convinced of his own ideology, or whether his ideas are merely attempts to provoke thought within the reader. On the other hand, he forthrightly asserts his position in regards to limiting the presidential war-making powers, though this was farther down the priority list than I would like to see it. There are few such capitulations, but they do exist. Understandably, they tend to fit within the stated purpose of his writing, and suggest that the author is humble enough to avoid being overly dogmatic. Sabato realizes there is more than one way to skin a cat, and that he is not the final say on such delicate matters, especially those with such dramatic potential effects.
So what do Americans think about Sabato’s ideas? He has put forth some rather convincing arguments, backed them with sound reason and common sense, and has provided many possible means of shoring up the failing document. But he didn’t stop there. He wanted to see what others thought of these concepts, so he conducted a poll of 981 Americans (p 180). This is a smart move on his part, as it once again shows the humility and willingness to hear the thoughts of others. Opposition is not a fear. Despite people’s lack of understanding regarding many of the issues Sababto presents, a respectable number of those polled responded supportively.
This writing is for the average American. Yes, it might challenge the average vocabulary, but that’s a good thing, so make sure to have a dictionary nearby. Sabato proficiently states the purpose of this book, and for the most part, defends it well. There are a few points where the author’s convictions are obscure. Admittedly, certain issues and concerns are addressed which require further attention, additional demolition, and stand in greater need of repair than a single written work can specify. Overall, his goal of eliciting thought and sparking debate has been accomplished. If this volume does nothing more than give the reader a deeper understanding of political workings in our country, it will have served a great purpose. A still greater purpose will be served if the reader is willing to hear the proposals made, and come to a conclusion concerning them.
Now that such a proposal has been made and defended, what is the next step? Do we have the luxury of sitting back and waiting for someone else to take responsibility for our country’s future? No. Much work is to be done, and the total cooperation of the people is vital. Merely the tangle of legality surrounding such an endeavor can make even the stoutest among us weak in the knees. The greatest objective of this work is to inspire to action the people of this great nation, to lift themselves from their recliners, and begin the task of restoring the structural integrity of the United States. Boldness is what it took to found a new nation. It will take the same boldness to redesign our foundational script. This is not a job for the timid. Today, we are summoned by a call to boldness, a call for we, the people, to step up and take responsibility for our current condition and the condition of our future.

[Steven Knight · Rating 4 out of 5]

⭐️⭐️✨ Book 72 of 2024. “A More Perfect Constitution: Why the Constitution Must Be Revised: Ideas to Inspire a New Generation” by Larry J. Sabato.

“A More Perfect Constitution presents creative and dynamic proposals from one of the most visionary and fertile political minds of our time to reinvigorate our Constitution and American governance at a time when such change is urgently needed, given the growing dysfunction and unfairness of our political system.

Combining idealism and pragmatism, and with full respect for the original document, Larry Sabato’s thought-provoking ideas range from the length of the president’s term in office and the number and terms of Supreme Court justices to the vagaries of the antiquated Electoral College, and a compelling call for universal national service-all laced through with the history behind each proposal and the potential impact on the lives of ordinary people. Aware that such changes won’t happen easily, but that the original Framers fully expected the Constitution to be regularly revised, Sabato urges us to engage in the debate and discussion his ideas will surely engender. During an election year, no book is more relevant or significant than this.”

[Kevin Stumpf · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some good insights and topics that make me think. The topic I agree with most has to do with the makeup of Congress. The current formula is NOT in any way equitable for any citizen of any state.

If more citizens understood that the Senators representing only 17% of the US population are in the “majority” or can control what happens in the Senate, I believe this would be a more talked about injustice.

However, with the current state of US politics, there is ZERO CHANCE a 2nd Constitutional Convention could/would be successful. Too many factions and division.

[Tim · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some interesting suggestions towards improving the Constitution. Generally praises current Constitution but believes time has come to update some of its provisions. Nothing really too radical proposed.

[Chuck Adams · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some interesting ideas, some less so.

[Mark · Rating 2 out of 5]

Could have been written as a long magazine article.

[Jennifer Dawe · Rating 2 out of 5]

I found the topic interesting. The book was thought provoking however I found I couldn’t pick it up to read. Almost dreaded reading it because it was too text book like for my taste.

[Derek · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was given this book as a gift and was intrigued by both its author and premise. Larry Sabato is renowned in political circles for his thorough analysis of electoral politics. His "Sabato Chrystal Ball," which predicts the outcome of House and Senate elections, has been a trusted standby for political junkies for years. I was curious to see Professor Sabato try his hand at policy and Constitutional law, boldly proposing major Constitutional revision to attempt to alleviate some of Americans' most pressing concerns in their government.

First Sabato should be given real credit for bold proposals, some of them logical and needed, and for through research. It is clear he, and perhaps his graduate student researchers, dug deep to find the opinions of academic and historical figures on even relatively obscure proposed Constitutional alterations. Unfortunately however, Sabato ultimately falls short in his attempts to cure the ills of the American body politic.

One of the major flaws of the text is Sabato's willingness to pander to both sides of the political aisle. Instead of proposing his reforms solely for the good the nation, Sabato attempts the kind of piecemeal assemblage that plays to the nation's lowest common denominator; something for liberals here, something for conservatives there. Despite laying out a strong case against a disastrous Balanced Budget Amendment (this book was written in 2007 and revised in 2008, before the economic crash) Sabato seems willing to concede its passage in order to appeal to conservatives and the uneducated populace that equates balancing a family checkbook to complicated national fiscal policy, a comparison Sabato himself makes. The author takes a similar position with proposed term limits for congressmembers, despite rightly pointing out they have been overwhelming failures at the state level.

This kind of devotion to the vox populi clouds the wisdom of the book. At times, it is clear that Sabato has not ventured too far from his ivory tower among the educated elite of the University of Virginia and has forgotten the mental lethargy of the average voter. While the wisdom of government students at such a fine university may be top notch, the average American's knowledge of Constitutional law is depressingly lacking. The professor seems to have forgot that most Americans care little for politics and are often willfully ignorant their nation's history and government's structure. And despite producing substantial evidence that demonstrates this ignorance, Sabato has redesigned the Constitution with one goal in mind: to make government even more responsive to the knee-jerk reactions of a country in which less than a half its population even knows the three branches of its government.

But even in his attempt at a purer form of democracy, Sabato strikes out. His proposal to modify, rather than do away with the Electoral College would continue the trend of Presidential candidates ignoring large chunks of the country, amplifying the voices of largely rural, white states while silencing the voices of more urban, ethnically diverse ones. And Sabato spends little time explaining how important, needed improvements to campaign finance reform and the voting process would work, compared with a large chapter explaining a bizarre, poorly defined requirement that all Americans spend two years in a form of national service. One could easily make the case that under Sabato's plan, millions of young people would be sucked into military service creating a larger standing army, likely producing a greater likelihood of armed conflict, but that is but one of many flaws astute readers will likely point out with some of Sabato's more conservative proposals.

Though Professor Sabato proposes some real common-sense reforms that should be enacted (fair campaign finance reform, contingency plans for government in the case of national disaster) his redesigned government would unquestionably lead to a more powerful Presidency, a weakened judiciary, and a Congress more subject to the whims of the people. While populists are likely to applaud Sabato, real students of governments will be constantly rolling their eyes at his child-like, unwavering trust in the average voter. Politics needs a healthy dose of cynicism, and placing all our faith in the wisdom of John Q. Public is as foolish as placing all our faith in the wisdom of John Q. Politician. Only a healthy distrust of both the powerful and the powerless can lead to a functional government. Sabato should remember the words of Alexander Hamilton who said, “If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy.” He should remember the words of John Jay who said, “Pure democracy, like pure rum, easily produces intoxication, and with it a thousand mad pranks and fooleries.” But more importantly, Sabato should remember an even more trusted age-old axiom, “Stick with what you're good at.”

[Addison Eisley · Rating 2 out of 5]

political scientists shouldn’t have opinions on the law

[Bob · Rating 3 out of 5]

Larry Sabato divided his book into several major categories of change, the congress, the presidency, the courts, the political parties and national service, each of these had an entire chapter of discussion. He also had a survey commissioned to see how the general population might react to his proposals and a chapter devoted to analysing the results of that survey. Finally, his 23 proposed change was to hold a constitutional convention to further develop these and other ideas for amending our constitution.

Eight of Sabato's 23 proposals affected congress. Of those, I found one I favor, expanding the size of the house of representatives. The changes to the senate were not acceptable, although I agree that small states have too much influence at the federal level. The other proposals could be acceptable if formulated in a more reasonable way.

Four proposals affected the presidency. The proposal to limit the president's war making proposal seems reasonable, although I believe our current constitution already does this. The power of congress to declare war has been ignored and usurped by many presidents. I did not like his idea for a six year term, with a potential two extra years. The line item veto in appropriations bills could be workable and changing the requirement of natural born citizen to twenty years of citizenship was reasonable as well.

On the courts, the fifteen year term could be made reasonable with some adjustments. Mandatory retirement age is too arbitrary, adding members to the supreme court is unnecessary, and judicial salaries do not need to be in the constitution.

I did not like any of Sabato's proposals for constitutionalizing the political parties. I would favor an amendment that eliminated all party based elections (primaries), all party based activity in congress, including party officers and caucuses. Campaign financing limits and automatic voter registration are not worth considering in my opinion.

The national service proposal provides for indoctrination of citizens while they are fairly young and therefore politically unacceptable. Holding a convention to modify our constitution is not only acceptable, but the best course of action considering how congress has merely tweaked the constitution in the last two centuries.

Sabato does present many good arguments on both sides of his chosen issues, even if most of his proposals are not necessarily in the people's interest and do not limit government but expand it. He concentrates on the structure of government, not the structure of our nation. I believe our government derives its power from the people, and that the bill of rights does not make the rights of the individual clear. So, I would restructure the founding document to clarify the rights of people and the limits of government, including state and local governments.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book and thinking about how to create a more perfect union.

[Bookworm · Rating 4 out of 5]

An intriguing idea from the founder and director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. He proposes various changes and adaptations for each branch of the government as well for the people to make the government better. Some are proposals that people are familiar with, such as term limits or changes. Others are not as well-known, such as introducing a type of service that all citizens have to perform (not just military, but other work as say with Teach for America or the Boys and Girls Club for example).

The book is divided by each branch of the government, with suggestions with their own headings. The section for the people is towards the end, plus concluding thoughts, notes and an index. It's dry reading, but probably a good book at the college level in an American government 101 class or for anyone who is interested in this field.

However, I must admit I was somewhat disappointed. The book is dry reading (but then again, the material isn't exactly setting the bestseller lists on fire). But I annoyed me was the lack of discussion of campaign finance reform. I flipped to the index to see if there was any entry for it, and there isn't. While Sabato goes into great detail about term limits, term changes, tweaking the requirements for "natural-born" citizens to become POTUS, the item veto, etc. he curiously neglects to discuss campaign finance and the role money plays in why elected officials spend SO much time chatting up donors, bundlers, fundraisers, etc.

To be fair it's not really his area of study, and I just realized this book came out in 2007. While not that long ago at the time of this writing, the landscape of campaign finance looks a little different. I wonder if that topic would be included should he decide to update this text.

However, it's an interesting read. I don't know if we'd ever see any of these proposals see daylight, except in much tweaked forms, but it's still interesting food for thought. Definitely recommended for students of the US government system or for those interested in government reform. But it might be worth flipping through it at the library if you're not sure you'd want this for a reference or if you just want to read it.

[Jacob · Rating 4 out of 5]

The title of this work, which riffs on the Constitution's preamble, is apt: the book contains 23 distinct proposals, and their justifications, that the author thinks will improve our governing document. Some, like term limits for Congress and a line-item veto, are already popular--and, as the author points out, used in many states. Others, like term limits for federal judges, are less in the public mind. And a few ideas are much bolder, such as compulsory national service.

Sabato, a professor of politics at the University of Virginia, explains the problems his proposals are meant to solve and does a good job putting the issues in context, including alternate ideas and critiques of his proposals. He points out that the founding fathers would be surprised at how little we have updated our Constitution in the 22+ decades since it was written for an agrarian, sparsely populated, slave-owning nation.

There are some significant reform proposals that he doesn't mention at all or dismisses without much discussion. These include changing to a parliamentary system (quickly dismissed) and changing our voting system, either by going to proportional representation or using preference voting (not discussed at all). These are systems used effectively in European democracies and, in my view, should have been at least looked at in depth in this book. I don't recall Sabato ever referring to the ways other democracies work, though they have great potential as examples for us; he does several times mention which of his reforms have been tried by various states.

Overall, A More Perfect Constitution is well-written and organized. The full text of the Constitution is included as an appendix and he includes polling data he commissioned showing the varying levels of support for his several proposals. There are 63 pages of interesting end notes that frequently provide useful context and examples.

Recommended for anyone interested in civics. Even when you disagree with his prescriptions, he highlights the issues and is willing to wrestle with them. 4/5

[Philip · Rating 3 out of 5]

Larry Sabato (Director of the Center for Politics at U. of Virginia) is respected by both Left and Right. His suggestions here probably lean Left of Center.
This book is the start of a conversation about revising the Constitution. No one wants to change the Bill of Rights or the basic separation of powers. But there is a growing impatience with gridlock and lack of accountability.
If you're interested in trying to reform the Constitution and not destroy it, and you are not a strict constructionist, these are the likely changes Sabato suggests:
1. Congress
Make Senate more representative -- 135 members -- 10 largest states get additional Senator, former Presidents become Senators-at-Large.
Expand size of House, maybe 1000 members

Change term of office:
From 2 to 3 year in House
Still 6 years in Senate but possible 2-year extension

Enact a Balanced Budget mandate

2. The Presidency
One term in office of 6 years with possible 2-year extension. Reduce campaigning while in office.
New and clear "war making" powers. Clearly define powers of President and Congress.
Enact Line item veto.
Eligibility: open office to those with 20 years of U.S. Citizenship, not just "natural born”.

3. Supreme Court
Reduce term limit from life-time to 15 years
Increase size to 12 members: more diverse, less likely to create a single “swing vote”.
Tie vote upholds lower court ruling. Majority decision requires stronger difference of opinion.


4. Presidential Elections
Change party orientation from state to national issues. Reduce number and influence of primaries, which only create special attention for just a few states.
Reduce length of campaign cycle. New terms of office would contribute to this.

[Public Scott · Rating 2 out of 5]

"Ya take what ya need and ya leave the rest..." So goes the line in The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down and I can think of no better example than this book. There are some cracker jack ideas in here - the youth service requirement, expanding the House of Representatives - others just lie there inert.

Some, like the balanced budget amendment seem like a preemptive sop to possible conservative critics.

Finally, there is no reason that so much ink should be spilled on the electoral college and the notion that we should "mend it not end it." No institution deserves its place in the dustbin of history more than the electoral college. Why Sabato feels the need to devote so many pages defending the electoral college and finding ways to make it more democratic is a mystery.

The author finds a very sympathetic reader in me. I agree that our Constitution is in dire need of updating and refurbishment. One expects a book devoted to this topic, essentially finding ways to rewrite the Constitution, to be iconoclastic. I found it parochial and prosaic. I had previously heard many of the ideas discussed in this book. That the author could devote scores of pages to line item vetoes and term limits, but only one paragraph to campaign finance was a huge disappointment (granted, the book came out before the Citizens United decision - but still, half a page?).

[Carlos · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is a weird blend of procedural pragmatism and political idealism. On the one hand Sabato fleshes out the philosophical rationale for each of his proposals, making ample use of comparison with other governing systems as well as historical analysis. On the other hand, he acknowledges the almost impossible feat of pushing each of these proposals as individual amendments to the current constitution, leading him to suggest a surprisingly radical solution: call a second constitutional convention. He is serious enough that he outlines the logistics of convening a constitutional convention and the years-long effort it would take to convince the public to get behind such solution. Yet, despite agreeing with several of his proposals, especially as they relate to the judicial branch, and even if it were possible to convince two thirds of state legislatures to call a constitutional convention, which I very much doubt, I do not see how three fourths of the state legislatures could agree to ratify even the most benign of changes. In the end, I found the book more worthwhile as a thought experiment for the reforms that might facilitate, and/or rebalance between the branches, the task of governing the country.

[Melissa Robinson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely fascinating. I certainly don't agree with all of Sabato's proposed reforms, but he suggests a number of interesting proposals and provides a well balanced accounting of the pluses and minuses. And agree or disagree, they all make you think.

My two favorite suggestions: a universal national service requirement and changing the presidency so that presidents serve 1 six year term instead of two fours. At the end of 5 of these 6 years, the country would vote on whether to give the president a one time, 2 year renewal of his/her term. If the country votes yes, the president stays, if we vote no, a full scale election is scheduled.

We are so used to talking about the Constitution as a scared document that few of us ever think about how it can be improved. The very thought of a constitutional convention makes a political geek like me want to cry from joy!

[S.D. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Contrary to what certain partisan opinions would have the people believe, the U.S. Constitution was intended as a living document, one that could grow and mature as the country did. Yet the inclusion of an amendment process (Article V) was somehow not enough evidence to prevent opinion from preferring a rigid, inviolable absolutism. Taking the amendment process as a starting point, Sabato proposes 23 changes that would (finally) bring the Constitution out of the 19th Century. Controversial? Certainly, but these are lucid arguments that look seriously at significant flaws, and harsh modern realities, and offer reasonable solutions – the need for rectifying the disproportionate power of less-populated states within the Senate key among them.

[Kathleen · Rating 2 out of 5]

An interesting discussion of proposed changes to the constitution. Many of the conclusions are not supported by facts but are opinions about the effect of the various changes. Some of the ideas were interesting and would perhaps be quite an improvement especially his thoughts on primary races and presidential voting. Other ideas strike me as being in violation of the intent of the founders. In either case, I cannot hear the drum beat to demand a constitutional convention to make these or any changes to the constitution except in the instance of having a balanced budget amendment and that one doesn't seem to be catching steam either.

[Jen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very thought provoking! Sabato explores changes to our constitution that are deserving of reflection and action by our law makers. His use-the-Constitution-to-change-the-Constitution approach isn't revolutionary, but his ideas are. Since many seemed to want "change," whatever that may be, this last election cycle, I think we should seek for political change within the covers of this book. I don't agree with every proposal, but I do think that they are all worth considering and bringing up for public debate.

[P.Marie Boydston · Rating 5 out of 5]

Regardless of your political party affiliation, Mr. Sabato has keen insight as to the constructs of America's founding documents, and his contemplation of a Constitutional Convention may sound revolutionary, but it shouldn't, not if you have read the Constitution lately that is. If you have heard President Obama's speeches regarding "perfecting" the union, the ideas and suggestions in this book should be considered as a great place to start. As I read this book, I couldn't help but think, "Wonder what this country would look like if only. . ."

[Dylan Penny · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sabato's critical insights into the political system within the United States makes for an interesting book. If you're looking for a light read on constitutional reform to fix the American system of representation and governance, this book is for you. From fixing our system of redistricting to expanding the size of the supreme court, this book will take you through 23 of Sabato's proposals and their necessity. It offers a more hopeful outlook on American democracy, where change is possible and corruption, alongside poor representation, do not have to be the norm.

[Joseph Kass · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the best political books I have ever read. I think it would be a great read for both political junkies and those who are not typically interested in Constitutional interpretation.

The writing is clear and simple without being boring. It is concise on the topics.

Great read. It should be mandatory for High School seniors, though it is a book suitable for Political Science graduate students as well.

[Joseph · Rating 5 out of 5]

There were many interesting proposals as to changes that should be made to our Constitution. The focus was on proposed amendments that would reduce corruption and increase citizen participation. Also I didn't know that House members only had to be from the state they are elected from, not the District.