What do you think?
Rate this book
Como salvar a democracia
A sequência de Como as democracias morrem é um chamado que põe em alerta todo o mundo democrático. Com prefácio inédito escrito pelos autores especialmente para o público brasileiro.
Como salvar a democracia trata de um impasse cujas consequências serão determinantes para o resto do mundo. Steven Levitsky e Daniel Ziblatt argumentam que, mesmo com dificuldade, os Estados Unidos estão se movendo em direção a uma democracia multirracial, algo que poucas sociedades já fizeram. Mas a perspectiva de mudança provocou uma reação autoritária que ameaça os próprios fundamentos do sistema político norte-americano. E agora o país enfrenta uma ou se torna uma democracia multirracial ou não será uma democracia de fato.
O problema, dizem os autores, é que a maioria das democracias modernas eliminou instituições obsoletas como câmaras superiores de elite, eleições indiretas e mandato vitalício para juízes; e os Estados Unidos ficaram perigosamente para trás. Pior, sua Constituição torna o país vulnerável a ataques internos, permitindo que minorias partidárias frustrem e até dominem as maiorias populares de forma consistente e tirânica.
Com base em uma ampla gama de exemplos — da França dos anos 1930 à Tailândia dos dias de hoje —, os professores de Harvard discutem o papel de agentes e partidos políticos no ataque à democracia e defendem reformas, sugerindo ações para tornar as instituições mais sólidas.
"Reformar as instituições deveria estar na agenda política urgente. Isto não basta, no entanto. A solução – aprendida neste livro a partir de outras democracias além dos Estados Unidos – deveria ser tão radical quanto o veneno supremacista que sufoca a democracia fortalecer as maiorias democráticas." — Thiago Amparo
Como salvar a democracia trata de um impasse cujas consequências serão determinantes para o resto do mundo. Steven Levitsky e Daniel Ziblatt argumentam que, mesmo com dificuldade, os Estados Unidos estão se movendo em direção a uma democracia multirracial, algo que poucas sociedades já fizeram. Mas a perspectiva de mudança provocou uma reação autoritária que ameaça os próprios fundamentos do sistema político norte-americano. E agora o país enfrenta uma ou se torna uma democracia multirracial ou não será uma democracia de fato.
O problema, dizem os autores, é que a maioria das democracias modernas eliminou instituições obsoletas como câmaras superiores de elite, eleições indiretas e mandato vitalício para juízes; e os Estados Unidos ficaram perigosamente para trás. Pior, sua Constituição torna o país vulnerável a ataques internos, permitindo que minorias partidárias frustrem e até dominem as maiorias populares de forma consistente e tirânica.
Com base em uma ampla gama de exemplos — da França dos anos 1930 à Tailândia dos dias de hoje —, os professores de Harvard discutem o papel de agentes e partidos políticos no ataque à democracia e defendem reformas, sugerindo ações para tornar as instituições mais sólidas.
"Reformar as instituições deveria estar na agenda política urgente. Isto não basta, no entanto. A solução – aprendida neste livro a partir de outras democracias além dos Estados Unidos – deveria ser tão radical quanto o veneno supremacista que sufoca a democracia fortalecer as maiorias democráticas." — Thiago Amparo
397 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 12, 2023
1160 people are currently reading
15560 people want to read
About the author
Steven Levitsky
24 books583 followersSteven Levitsky is an American political scientist and Professor of Government at Harvard University. A comparative political scientist, his research interests focus on Latin America and include political parties and party systems, authoritarianism and democratization, and weak and informal institutions.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 503 reviews
Read
October 6, 2023Another one of those books that all Americans should agree on because it argues that our government should be more representative of the people than it is, that all our votes should count equally, that change is a necessary part of life and thus should have some kind of role in governance as well.
But no. I'm sure instead the book will strike readers as controversial. In it authors Levitsky and Ziblatt argue that our republican form of democracy is far behind others in the world and change is necessary, especially when you consider that NOT changing leaves the country prey to democracy's worst predators: minority rule advocates who take advantage of our system's historical weaknesses and authoritarian sorts who only want law and order to apply to their political enemies (when they break the law, it's "patriotic" and, by the way, up is down and cold is hot).
For starters, the authors reach into the histories of both the USA and other democracies to show where dangers lie and to put matters like the Constitution into context. It is not holy writ. It has its faults and needs to change with the times. Even the Founding Fathers warned as much. But now there are those who stubbornly fight any semblance in change to things like the Constitution, the Electoral College (not in the Constitution, folks), and the Senate filibuster (as well as its controversial from the start form of "equal representation" -- Wyoming and Rhode Island are as powerful there as California or Texas, as all get two senators who can wreak havoc with legislation or, more likely, block everything that cannot muster 60 votes).
In addition to making their points through historical data, the book details the contemporary scene and just how dangerously we've wandered from the Founders' original intent, to the point where candidates lose popular votes both in states and country elections yet maintain control with such blatantly unfair advantages as gerrymandered districts they've rigged in advance to make losing control of legislatures all but impossible to an Electoral College that gives one party (Republican) about a 4-5 point advantage over its opponent (Democrats). That is, the GOP candidates can afford to lose by up to 4-5% in the popular vote and STILL win the Electoral College, an outdated compromise from early in our history that has made a mockery of the word "democracy." No one was much happy with it when it began and no one is much happy with it now -- except tyrants of the minority who benefit from it every four years.
In the final chapter, the authors lay out a plan for change that includes term limits for Supreme Court justices (another subject in the news of late... partisans in robes making mockery of "blind justice" by thwarting the will of majorities of Americans).
If you believe in democracy and still have hope for a country under siege, you could do worse than educate yourself by reading this succinct 260-pager.
But no. I'm sure instead the book will strike readers as controversial. In it authors Levitsky and Ziblatt argue that our republican form of democracy is far behind others in the world and change is necessary, especially when you consider that NOT changing leaves the country prey to democracy's worst predators: minority rule advocates who take advantage of our system's historical weaknesses and authoritarian sorts who only want law and order to apply to their political enemies (when they break the law, it's "patriotic" and, by the way, up is down and cold is hot).
For starters, the authors reach into the histories of both the USA and other democracies to show where dangers lie and to put matters like the Constitution into context. It is not holy writ. It has its faults and needs to change with the times. Even the Founding Fathers warned as much. But now there are those who stubbornly fight any semblance in change to things like the Constitution, the Electoral College (not in the Constitution, folks), and the Senate filibuster (as well as its controversial from the start form of "equal representation" -- Wyoming and Rhode Island are as powerful there as California or Texas, as all get two senators who can wreak havoc with legislation or, more likely, block everything that cannot muster 60 votes).
In addition to making their points through historical data, the book details the contemporary scene and just how dangerously we've wandered from the Founders' original intent, to the point where candidates lose popular votes both in states and country elections yet maintain control with such blatantly unfair advantages as gerrymandered districts they've rigged in advance to make losing control of legislatures all but impossible to an Electoral College that gives one party (Republican) about a 4-5 point advantage over its opponent (Democrats). That is, the GOP candidates can afford to lose by up to 4-5% in the popular vote and STILL win the Electoral College, an outdated compromise from early in our history that has made a mockery of the word "democracy." No one was much happy with it when it began and no one is much happy with it now -- except tyrants of the minority who benefit from it every four years.
In the final chapter, the authors lay out a plan for change that includes term limits for Supreme Court justices (another subject in the news of late... partisans in robes making mockery of "blind justice" by thwarting the will of majorities of Americans).
If you believe in democracy and still have hope for a country under siege, you could do worse than educate yourself by reading this succinct 260-pager.
November 22, 2024
"We stand at a crossroads: either America will be a multiracial democracy or it will not be a democracy at all."
Levitsky and Ziblatt made 15 recommendations to strengthen the American democracy.
TO ENCOURAGE VOTING
1. Make voting a constitutional right with a constitutional amendment.
2. Automatic registration on 18th birthday.
3. Expand early voting.
4. Election Day holiday.
5. Restore voting rights for ex-felons.
6. Guarantee voting rights at the national level.
7. Hire nonpartisan professionals to run elections.
TO ENSURE ELECTIONS REFLECT MAJORITY PREFERENCES
8. Abolish the Electoral College.
9. Make the number of Senators proportional to population.
10. Repeal the 1967 Uniform Congressional District Act and replace it with a "proportional representation system."
11. Eliminate partisan gerrymandering with independent redistricting commissions.
12. No longer limit the number of Congressional Representatives to 435.
EMPOWER GOVERNING MAJORITIES
13. Abolish the Senate filibuster.
14. Establish term limits.
15. Make it easier to admend the national constitution.
Levitsky and Ziblatt made 15 recommendations to strengthen the American democracy.
TO ENCOURAGE VOTING
1. Make voting a constitutional right with a constitutional amendment.
2. Automatic registration on 18th birthday.
3. Expand early voting.
4. Election Day holiday.
5. Restore voting rights for ex-felons.
6. Guarantee voting rights at the national level.
7. Hire nonpartisan professionals to run elections.
TO ENSURE ELECTIONS REFLECT MAJORITY PREFERENCES
8. Abolish the Electoral College.
9. Make the number of Senators proportional to population.
10. Repeal the 1967 Uniform Congressional District Act and replace it with a "proportional representation system."
11. Eliminate partisan gerrymandering with independent redistricting commissions.
12. No longer limit the number of Congressional Representatives to 435.
EMPOWER GOVERNING MAJORITIES
13. Abolish the Senate filibuster.
14. Establish term limits.
15. Make it easier to admend the national constitution.
November 12, 2023
This book explores the unique aspects of our system of democracy that permit an extremist, authoritarian minority of the country to hold the rest of the country hostage. Other countries have managed to evolve. They don’t have an electoral college, or a senate that gives disproportionate weight to states with a very small population, or judges who are appointed for life, or filibusters, or a constitution that is almost impossible to amend. Personally, I blame most of that on the drafters of the Constitution, who went way too far to appease the slave holding states. Those same states (and a few others who are stuck in the 1800s) have held a knife to the throat of social progress and democracy ever since. Some of the drafters knew it could lead to minority rule, and they did it anyway.
As in “How Democracies Die: What History Reveals About Our Future”, the authors do suggest some solutions. However, those suggestions are so unrealistic that they are laughable. Honestly, do you see any possibility of compromise on any issues at all given the current state of Congress? And amending the Constitution is a non-starter, given the ability of a few states to block any reforms. Well, at least the book is thought provoking and illuminating.
As in “How Democracies Die: What History Reveals About Our Future”, the authors do suggest some solutions. However, those suggestions are so unrealistic that they are laughable. Honestly, do you see any possibility of compromise on any issues at all given the current state of Congress? And amending the Constitution is a non-starter, given the ability of a few states to block any reforms. Well, at least the book is thought provoking and illuminating.
September 20, 2025
The two men who authored this book also wrote the book 'How Democracies Die" and are speaking to the same issue here. One route away from democracy is when the minority hold sway over the majority. Although there were those who opposed the areas where the minority was given the power to overwhelm the majority, they were overruled so our constitution ended up adopted a senate that included two senators from each state, regardless of the population and the result is that a state like California with a huge population has the same representation as Wyoming which has a very small population. It is a case where the majority can be overruled by the majority. Further, the invention of the filibuster made it worse preventing legislation favored by the majority in the country from becoming law. Perhaps the most well known example of this was when civil rights legislation failed to make it to the floor of the senate.
The electoral college is another example where the minority can and have prevented the will of the majority. Even though Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, Trump won the electoral vote and the presidency. The reason for this is the winner take all process which is followed in all but two or three states. So if a candidate wins 50.1% of the vote in a particular state, that person wins 100% of the vote and his/her opponent gets no electoral votes. In recent years the loser in the popular vote has become president.
The authors point out how Founders from Washington to Hamilton to Madison and Jefferson decried minority rule but in 1787, they were forced to accept it. That SCOTUS members have lifetime appointments is discussed as well. In the early Republic, people lived shorter lives and stayed on the bench for a much shorter time. People live much longer now and so we have judges who are on the bench, sometimes nearly 40 years holding on to the ideas that do not comport to todays society.
Levitsky compares the U.S. to other modern democracies that have modernized their constitutions to make them more acceptable to today's world. Unfortunately, the process of amending our constitution is so onerous that it rarely gets done.
The points made above represent only a few of the well-reasoned arguments made in the book. They see that our democracy is threatened by the minority imposing their rules on a population whose majority does not agree with. I highly recommend this well-researched book. January 6 was a warning. Control by the few whose party has radicalized is not giving up, but if we want to preserve the democracy, according to the authors, we must work relentlessly to make changes.
On my second reading of this book, I absorbed much more than I did on the first. The thing that stands out the most is that the book was published in 2023, obviously prior to the presidential election in 2024. As I read about all the counter-majoritarian actions that had occurred and reflected on what has happened since, I can only imagine what the authors think about it. They did warn us but we did not listen- well many of us didn't. That said, I am still in disbelief that Trump could have won again. It would not surprise me if at some point his campaign did not find a way to fix the election. I am not conspiracy prone. I just cannot believe that after everything we found out after he left office that he could win another election. In any case, I am sure I am not the only person walking on egg shells now, not knowing what will happen next. The country somehow needs to find the will and the strategy to undo all the damage done by this regime- if indeed we have an election in 2028.
The electoral college is another example where the minority can and have prevented the will of the majority. Even though Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, Trump won the electoral vote and the presidency. The reason for this is the winner take all process which is followed in all but two or three states. So if a candidate wins 50.1% of the vote in a particular state, that person wins 100% of the vote and his/her opponent gets no electoral votes. In recent years the loser in the popular vote has become president.
The authors point out how Founders from Washington to Hamilton to Madison and Jefferson decried minority rule but in 1787, they were forced to accept it. That SCOTUS members have lifetime appointments is discussed as well. In the early Republic, people lived shorter lives and stayed on the bench for a much shorter time. People live much longer now and so we have judges who are on the bench, sometimes nearly 40 years holding on to the ideas that do not comport to todays society.
Levitsky compares the U.S. to other modern democracies that have modernized their constitutions to make them more acceptable to today's world. Unfortunately, the process of amending our constitution is so onerous that it rarely gets done.
The points made above represent only a few of the well-reasoned arguments made in the book. They see that our democracy is threatened by the minority imposing their rules on a population whose majority does not agree with. I highly recommend this well-researched book. January 6 was a warning. Control by the few whose party has radicalized is not giving up, but if we want to preserve the democracy, according to the authors, we must work relentlessly to make changes.
On my second reading of this book, I absorbed much more than I did on the first. The thing that stands out the most is that the book was published in 2023, obviously prior to the presidential election in 2024. As I read about all the counter-majoritarian actions that had occurred and reflected on what has happened since, I can only imagine what the authors think about it. They did warn us but we did not listen- well many of us didn't. That said, I am still in disbelief that Trump could have won again. It would not surprise me if at some point his campaign did not find a way to fix the election. I am not conspiracy prone. I just cannot believe that after everything we found out after he left office that he could win another election. In any case, I am sure I am not the only person walking on egg shells now, not knowing what will happen next. The country somehow needs to find the will and the strategy to undo all the damage done by this regime- if indeed we have an election in 2028.
September 10, 2025
"Loving America with a broken heart means recognizing our own country's failure to live up to its stated democratic ideals--its failure, for too long, to provide liberty and justice for all. It means committing ourselves to achieving those ideals, by building an inclusive, multiracial democracy that all Americans can embrace."That terrific paragraph appears in the final (optimism-imbued) chapter of this welcome follow-up to the authors' 'How Democracies Die'. Both books seem to ooze the kind of urgency one might feel while reading a high-quality, politically charged suspense novel. ~ except, of course, that this is the stuff of all-too-real real life. ~ and this new book hits closer to home since its focus *is* our home... and how we're being placed on the edge of losing where we live.
It's tough-love info; a percentage of which people may need to be reminded of, and a portion of which may not be all-that-widely known. (What you don't know about your own 'backyard' might shock you.)
I won't lie; it's largely depressing information, revealing the reality we have been warned about in Jane Mayer's 'Dark Money', Nancy MacLean's 'Democracy in Chains', Kurt Andersen's 'Evil Geniuses', etc. This is what has come of both our government and our Supreme Court being systematically bought ('thanks' to the orchestration of fiends like the Koch brothers).
~ but there *is* that important last chapter, putting all into perspective.
It shouldn't be thought that Levitsky and Ziblatt - ace social scientists - are essentially interested in making you feel depressed. On the contrary; they want you to feel empowered - and they want to help in showing all of us (who care) how to get there. Although it may be tempting to think of the authors as being unrealistically idealistic (esp. in their conclusions / suggestions for necessary change), it would be more beneficial to think of them as being the kind of 'dreamers' who have always held fast to what genuinely does make and has often already made America great (as opposed to the garbage of MAGA rhetoric).
What the authors want - and what they want for us - is possible, if we want it for ourselves.
More than ever, the fight in saving our democracy is an ongoing thing. Our opponents - more and more scared - are becoming more and more desperate. We are fortunate in having voices like those of Levitsky and Ziblatt. Take their clear-eyed, full-hearted encouragement and run with it!
February 8, 2024
The Republican Party no Longer Exists
The Republican Party no longer exists. It has gone the way of the Wigs of the 1850s. That which is still referred to as the Republican Party is a new political party altogether. What was the Republican Party was replaced by the MAGA Party in 2016 just as the Republicans replaced the Whig Party in 1856. The MAGA Party is a radicalized cult collection of dangerous extremist religious zealots empowered by archaic anti-democratic institutions such as the Electoral College, the Senate filibuster and the under representation of significant population centers in the Senate as well as obvious abuses such as gerrymandering. The Republican Party of Lincoln ended with the election of Rutherford B. Hays in 1876, but even this rump party is now dead.
The current ‘Republican Party’, the MAGA Party since 2016, now looks a lot like the post-Civil War Democratic Party of the 19th Century in that the response of both parties to change is to shrink the electorate through voter suppression rather than embracing a changing electorate. In each case, the Party radicalized the shrunken electorate with anger, grievance, and resentment to motivate turnout.
The Banality of Absurdity
We have come to the point where we ignore the real vote and accept the winner of the fictional vote as President of the United States. Twice in the 21st Century, viz, 2000 and 2016, the loser of the real vote (the popular vote which would represent a true national election) was elected by winning the fictional vote (the Electoral College). We have become conditioned to accept this absurdity as normal and the outcome as legitimate. The Electoral College resembles the College of Cardinals used to elect the Pope – hardly a democratic institution or even the manner in which the Holy Roman Emperors were elected by a Council of Electors through the Middle Ages. The Electoral College is a Medieval relic we accept as ‘normal’ and take seriously by which we still elect the U.S. President with increasing disastrous results.
The filibuster rules of the U.S., Senate are nowhere in the Constitution are actually contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. Again, we accept it as normal and legitime that this body can decide on its own that a 60% majority is needed to move legislation. Add to this that Senate misrepresents the population by allotting disproportional greater voting strength to sparsely populated states. The Senate thus represents abstract states rather than real people. It does not matter if a majority of Americans support a multiracial democracy, the institutions of the nation thwart this majority and empower a reactionary and racist minority to mount a fierce authoritarian and theocratic backlash. The lack of a need for a true legislative majority only empowers sinister political extremes.
America versus The United States
Stupidity is the basis of malice and cruelty. The powerful minority (religious, political, economic) rely on the ignorance of the masses and work to increase and empower ignorance. The experience of a delusion such as religion is real. Religious belief is a personal subjective psychological victory of the individual believer over external objective reality. America was settled on the strength of such religious fanaticism as well as genocide, slavery, and theft. The U.S. was founded upon idealistic Enlightenment principles of secular government and universal humanistic aspirations but with many compromises. We are here to enjoy the fruits of this bifurcatious and contradictory founding. We go on to make the false inference that since the U.S. is the current global hegemonic superpower that its government, institutions and founding principles must be sacrosanct and beyond question or need of change. The Constitution itself becomes a sacred document and belief in its perfection is an article of American religious faith. No intuition works in this manner. All are subject to context and change. It is a dangerous form of arrogant ignorance to assume otherwise but traditionally Americans do to so.
Pascal’s Wager
Tyranny of the minority is made possible in the most cynical and cowardly of ways. To say that ‘big’ business always sides with authoritarianism is to state the obvious and that which is historically precedented. But American business leaders have reached a new crass bottom and cynical low. For example, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, Jamie Dimon, has begun the cynical acceptance of Trump to match the cowardly acceptance of Trump by political leaders such as Mitch McConnel. I imagine that Dimon thinks that cozying up to Trump is the pragmatic risk adverse and prudent strategy; that this is his obligation to his shareholders and investors. But what obligation does Dimon have as a citizen? None apparently. If he does not endorse Trump and Trump becomes President, Dimon and JPMorgan Chase could suffer the wrath of the tyrant. However, if he endorses Trump and Trump loses, there is no fear of retribution from the Biden administration. There is nothing to be gained by endorsing Biden and much to be lost by not endorsing Trump. This is the commercial version of the cynical bet known as Pascal’s Wager. The safe bet is to endorse Trump, if Trump wins, Dimon and JPMorgan Chase is safe. If Trump losses, Dimon losses nothing for having backed him but he could lose much if he backs Biden and Trump wins. Combine this with the cowardly connivance and total toleration of ordinary and mainstream politicians and minority-based authoritarianism will succeed in taking hold. Politicians such as Mitch McConnel manipulate the checks and balances of the Constitution, e.g., the advice and consent role of the Senate to achieve crude political goals proving that the much-vaunted checks and balances as well as the institutional guardrails are only as good as the people who administer them. We have much to fear.
The Republican Party no longer exists. It has gone the way of the Wigs of the 1850s. That which is still referred to as the Republican Party is a new political party altogether. What was the Republican Party was replaced by the MAGA Party in 2016 just as the Republicans replaced the Whig Party in 1856. The MAGA Party is a radicalized cult collection of dangerous extremist religious zealots empowered by archaic anti-democratic institutions such as the Electoral College, the Senate filibuster and the under representation of significant population centers in the Senate as well as obvious abuses such as gerrymandering. The Republican Party of Lincoln ended with the election of Rutherford B. Hays in 1876, but even this rump party is now dead.
The current ‘Republican Party’, the MAGA Party since 2016, now looks a lot like the post-Civil War Democratic Party of the 19th Century in that the response of both parties to change is to shrink the electorate through voter suppression rather than embracing a changing electorate. In each case, the Party radicalized the shrunken electorate with anger, grievance, and resentment to motivate turnout.
The Banality of Absurdity
We have come to the point where we ignore the real vote and accept the winner of the fictional vote as President of the United States. Twice in the 21st Century, viz, 2000 and 2016, the loser of the real vote (the popular vote which would represent a true national election) was elected by winning the fictional vote (the Electoral College). We have become conditioned to accept this absurdity as normal and the outcome as legitimate. The Electoral College resembles the College of Cardinals used to elect the Pope – hardly a democratic institution or even the manner in which the Holy Roman Emperors were elected by a Council of Electors through the Middle Ages. The Electoral College is a Medieval relic we accept as ‘normal’ and take seriously by which we still elect the U.S. President with increasing disastrous results.
The filibuster rules of the U.S., Senate are nowhere in the Constitution are actually contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. Again, we accept it as normal and legitime that this body can decide on its own that a 60% majority is needed to move legislation. Add to this that Senate misrepresents the population by allotting disproportional greater voting strength to sparsely populated states. The Senate thus represents abstract states rather than real people. It does not matter if a majority of Americans support a multiracial democracy, the institutions of the nation thwart this majority and empower a reactionary and racist minority to mount a fierce authoritarian and theocratic backlash. The lack of a need for a true legislative majority only empowers sinister political extremes.
America versus The United States
Stupidity is the basis of malice and cruelty. The powerful minority (religious, political, economic) rely on the ignorance of the masses and work to increase and empower ignorance. The experience of a delusion such as religion is real. Religious belief is a personal subjective psychological victory of the individual believer over external objective reality. America was settled on the strength of such religious fanaticism as well as genocide, slavery, and theft. The U.S. was founded upon idealistic Enlightenment principles of secular government and universal humanistic aspirations but with many compromises. We are here to enjoy the fruits of this bifurcatious and contradictory founding. We go on to make the false inference that since the U.S. is the current global hegemonic superpower that its government, institutions and founding principles must be sacrosanct and beyond question or need of change. The Constitution itself becomes a sacred document and belief in its perfection is an article of American religious faith. No intuition works in this manner. All are subject to context and change. It is a dangerous form of arrogant ignorance to assume otherwise but traditionally Americans do to so.
Pascal’s Wager
Tyranny of the minority is made possible in the most cynical and cowardly of ways. To say that ‘big’ business always sides with authoritarianism is to state the obvious and that which is historically precedented. But American business leaders have reached a new crass bottom and cynical low. For example, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, Jamie Dimon, has begun the cynical acceptance of Trump to match the cowardly acceptance of Trump by political leaders such as Mitch McConnel. I imagine that Dimon thinks that cozying up to Trump is the pragmatic risk adverse and prudent strategy; that this is his obligation to his shareholders and investors. But what obligation does Dimon have as a citizen? None apparently. If he does not endorse Trump and Trump becomes President, Dimon and JPMorgan Chase could suffer the wrath of the tyrant. However, if he endorses Trump and Trump loses, there is no fear of retribution from the Biden administration. There is nothing to be gained by endorsing Biden and much to be lost by not endorsing Trump. This is the commercial version of the cynical bet known as Pascal’s Wager. The safe bet is to endorse Trump, if Trump wins, Dimon and JPMorgan Chase is safe. If Trump losses, Dimon losses nothing for having backed him but he could lose much if he backs Biden and Trump wins. Combine this with the cowardly connivance and total toleration of ordinary and mainstream politicians and minority-based authoritarianism will succeed in taking hold. Politicians such as Mitch McConnel manipulate the checks and balances of the Constitution, e.g., the advice and consent role of the Senate to achieve crude political goals proving that the much-vaunted checks and balances as well as the institutional guardrails are only as good as the people who administer them. We have much to fear.
December 21, 2023
"Tyranny of the Minority" is fundamentally a solid book, but I'm going to start this review with a bit of whining...
Why? Because I do not understand the ratings for this book. It's a solid book, don't get me wrong, but it's not fantastic - as one would be forgiven in believing seeing the 4.5 stars. I don't get it. This is a very, very basic book. Nothing stands out. Period. I cannot believe that anyone who has ever opened a political science book will be surprised by a single flaw or argument here. It's basic, plain and simple.
This does make it a decent introductory read, true, but how many complete newbs would pick it up?
Similarly, I also cannot imagine that anyone interested enough in the topic of the book will be swayed by anything in here. Maybe, if you agreed with the authors from the get-go, you'd come out with a few new arguments for your opinions. If you disagreed from the get-go, I imagine... - correction, I do not have to imagine, nor does anyone else, just read the negative reviews here.
In short, this book is largely superfluous despite the solid (if well known) points made in it. Unfortunately, it reads like a bit of an incomplete greatest hits list of grandfathered-in (un)democratic mistakes.
With that out of my system, "Tyranny of the Minority" is a good read. It's well-written and well-argued, provides historical meat on the bones for why the U.S. political system looks the way it does, and generally does a good job comparing it to other examples across the world. The U.S. is, largely, a representative democracy, but it does a piss-poor job of the "proportional" bit - and that's quite an important bit, isn't it!?
So, all this harping, what are some of these greatest hits? Well, it all starts with the Constitution. It's something to be proud of, for sure, but it should have been retired and replaced with a younger model a long time ago. The list goes on from there... disproportionate representation, the electoral college, gerrymandering, the two-chamber system (in itself an issue, even more so with the crazy strong and ridiculously apportioned Senate), winner-takes-all elections and the two-party system, the issues surrounding the Supreme Court, etc.; As mentioned, you've heard it all before. It's a system set up to protect against a tyrannical majority that has, ironically, created the titular "Tyranny of the Minority."
The rub, of course, is that it's ridiculously difficult to change any of this since the people benefiting from the current system would find the shoe on the other foot after some of the reforms suggested by the authors. They know this, so why would they cede the power? And what possible incentives can be provided these people to persuade them to support reform? The latter of these questions is not touched upon here, nor is it generally by people like the authors who writes books like these. Without an attempt at solving this part of the equation, calls for reforms from the political left will fall on deaf ears on the right - for very obvious reasons.
Why? Because I do not understand the ratings for this book. It's a solid book, don't get me wrong, but it's not fantastic - as one would be forgiven in believing seeing the 4.5 stars. I don't get it. This is a very, very basic book. Nothing stands out. Period. I cannot believe that anyone who has ever opened a political science book will be surprised by a single flaw or argument here. It's basic, plain and simple.
This does make it a decent introductory read, true, but how many complete newbs would pick it up?
Similarly, I also cannot imagine that anyone interested enough in the topic of the book will be swayed by anything in here. Maybe, if you agreed with the authors from the get-go, you'd come out with a few new arguments for your opinions. If you disagreed from the get-go, I imagine... - correction, I do not have to imagine, nor does anyone else, just read the negative reviews here.
In short, this book is largely superfluous despite the solid (if well known) points made in it. Unfortunately, it reads like a bit of an incomplete greatest hits list of grandfathered-in (un)democratic mistakes.
With that out of my system, "Tyranny of the Minority" is a good read. It's well-written and well-argued, provides historical meat on the bones for why the U.S. political system looks the way it does, and generally does a good job comparing it to other examples across the world. The U.S. is, largely, a representative democracy, but it does a piss-poor job of the "proportional" bit - and that's quite an important bit, isn't it!?
So, all this harping, what are some of these greatest hits? Well, it all starts with the Constitution. It's something to be proud of, for sure, but it should have been retired and replaced with a younger model a long time ago. The list goes on from there... disproportionate representation, the electoral college, gerrymandering, the two-chamber system (in itself an issue, even more so with the crazy strong and ridiculously apportioned Senate), winner-takes-all elections and the two-party system, the issues surrounding the Supreme Court, etc.; As mentioned, you've heard it all before. It's a system set up to protect against a tyrannical majority that has, ironically, created the titular "Tyranny of the Minority."
The rub, of course, is that it's ridiculously difficult to change any of this since the people benefiting from the current system would find the shoe on the other foot after some of the reforms suggested by the authors. They know this, so why would they cede the power? And what possible incentives can be provided these people to persuade them to support reform? The latter of these questions is not touched upon here, nor is it generally by people like the authors who writes books like these. Without an attempt at solving this part of the equation, calls for reforms from the political left will fall on deaf ears on the right - for very obvious reasons.
January 20, 2025
The biggest problem with this book is that, published in 2023 (not sure what month) - it can be said rather objectively that Tyranny of the Minority didn’t exactly age well. The authors, two longtime professors of history at Harvard, clearly know their stuff, but this book won’t be for a lot of people.
As I said to start with, it essentially seems to write Trumpism off as a “possible four years of right-wing radicalism” before hopefully - but with still, many lingering worries - a lean toward authoritarianism and minority rule that could continue to arise within the Republican Party base if they don’t begin to change their conservative platforms to fit the ever changing status quo and policies desired by the majority of Americans.
Basically, that they’ll continue to embrace more radical conservative ideals and politicians if they don’t start to act like true democrats and accept their ideals are outdated, and that they can’t continue to win elections anymore (at least not the popular vote) unless they expand their voter base outside of white males, along with white evangelists, rural whites, etc. While they admit that Trump didn’t “change the Republican Party, he understood it” for some reason, they don’t seem to give much thought to the idea that he’d run again.
Even though it was pretty clear he was observing the political mood and when it was obvious he still maintained his hold on the GOP, he announced his candidacy - to no one’s surprise, really.
Most of the rest of the book might be good for people who are not overly familiar with politics and how our institutions are run - such as the issues with the Electoral College and the Senate being the main institutions which continue rule by the minority, the U.S. being the only democracy in the world that still has an Electoral College and the presidential candidate that loses the popular vote can still win elections.
Adding to these complications, of course, is the fact that the Supreme Court isn’t even bothering to hide its overt partisan bias any longer. Couple this with the fact that once again, America is the outlier among democracies in the fact that it is the only country to not enforce a mandatory retirement age for SC justices, and/or forbid lifetime appointments. Oh, and let’s not forget that our Constitution is the toughest Constitution in the world to change, with all of the supermajority votes required by states to ratify any new amendment.
It’s a great cautionary tale of illiberalism and democratic backsliding, but one that comes much too late, given Trump’s second inauguration is… well, today. Also, the people who the authors are hoping to reach are not going to read this book. It will only be read by those already in agreement with the authors.
That being said, I must repeat, it’s a great book if you want to better familiarize yourself with our political institutions and why minority rule persists throughout our country’s history. But for those of us well-versed in political science, you shouldn’t expect to learn anything new.
As I said to start with, it essentially seems to write Trumpism off as a “possible four years of right-wing radicalism” before hopefully - but with still, many lingering worries - a lean toward authoritarianism and minority rule that could continue to arise within the Republican Party base if they don’t begin to change their conservative platforms to fit the ever changing status quo and policies desired by the majority of Americans.
Basically, that they’ll continue to embrace more radical conservative ideals and politicians if they don’t start to act like true democrats and accept their ideals are outdated, and that they can’t continue to win elections anymore (at least not the popular vote) unless they expand their voter base outside of white males, along with white evangelists, rural whites, etc. While they admit that Trump didn’t “change the Republican Party, he understood it” for some reason, they don’t seem to give much thought to the idea that he’d run again.
Even though it was pretty clear he was observing the political mood and when it was obvious he still maintained his hold on the GOP, he announced his candidacy - to no one’s surprise, really.
Most of the rest of the book might be good for people who are not overly familiar with politics and how our institutions are run - such as the issues with the Electoral College and the Senate being the main institutions which continue rule by the minority, the U.S. being the only democracy in the world that still has an Electoral College and the presidential candidate that loses the popular vote can still win elections.
Adding to these complications, of course, is the fact that the Supreme Court isn’t even bothering to hide its overt partisan bias any longer. Couple this with the fact that once again, America is the outlier among democracies in the fact that it is the only country to not enforce a mandatory retirement age for SC justices, and/or forbid lifetime appointments. Oh, and let’s not forget that our Constitution is the toughest Constitution in the world to change, with all of the supermajority votes required by states to ratify any new amendment.
It’s a great cautionary tale of illiberalism and democratic backsliding, but one that comes much too late, given Trump’s second inauguration is… well, today. Also, the people who the authors are hoping to reach are not going to read this book. It will only be read by those already in agreement with the authors.
That being said, I must repeat, it’s a great book if you want to better familiarize yourself with our political institutions and why minority rule persists throughout our country’s history. But for those of us well-versed in political science, you shouldn’t expect to learn anything new.
October 16, 2023
A solid look at the political system the US Constitution has given us and all the ways it empowers a minority to rule the people. It wasn't deliberate - no constitution is perfect on the first try - but the number of counter-majoritarian establishments is kind of shocking. The electoral college, which allows people who lose the popular vote to become president anyway. The Supreme Court, with lifetime appointments by those losing presidents. Then there's actions blessed by said Supreme Court, like partisan gerrymandering ('out of our purview', they said in 2019) and rules that have no constitutional basis at all, such as the Senate filibuster.
Levitsky and Ziblatt use historical examples from both the US and around the world to show both that the current power grab by a weakening party isn't unusual, and that our system of government makes it uncommonly easy to pull off. In the last chapter they suggest over a dozen reforms that would bring the US more in line with the rest of the world - make Election Day a holiday, get rid of gerrymandered districts at the federal and state level, elect the president by popular vote, abolish the filibuster, and so forth.
Tyranny of the Minority is a great book if you're just getting into these issues, as you can tell by reading the five star reviews. I've done a ton of reading in this area over the last couple of years so I skimmed much of the history, affecting my own rating, but that doesn't take away from the great work the authors have done.
Levitsky and Ziblatt use historical examples from both the US and around the world to show both that the current power grab by a weakening party isn't unusual, and that our system of government makes it uncommonly easy to pull off. In the last chapter they suggest over a dozen reforms that would bring the US more in line with the rest of the world - make Election Day a holiday, get rid of gerrymandered districts at the federal and state level, elect the president by popular vote, abolish the filibuster, and so forth.
Tyranny of the Minority is a great book if you're just getting into these issues, as you can tell by reading the five star reviews. I've done a ton of reading in this area over the last couple of years so I skimmed much of the history, affecting my own rating, but that doesn't take away from the great work the authors have done.
October 30, 2023
This book reads like two ivory tower liberal professors are upset that conservatives have a say in government and are seeking to dismantle everything that makes that possible (e.g. eliminating the Electoral College, the Senate Filibuster, lifetime tenure of Supreme Court justices—very clear the authors begrudge the appointment of the three Trump justices). while trying to encourage easier ways to enhance the current regimes ability to promote change (e.g. the easing of the threshold to amend the Constitution which presumably would enable many of the aforementioned aims thereby destroying several founding principles). Thankfully it’s unlikely that smaller states will likely willingly forgo the electoral protections and thus such change it’s unlikely to occur.
The authors may ultimately be grateful that the cumbersome process to amend the constitution serves as a protection against pure populist movements, which could otherwise be utilize to amend the constitution to strip presidential term limits, thereby allowing the potential for unlimited rule by a president reviled by a significant portion of the country.
That the authors cloak their combination anti conservative bias and extremely flawed assumptions in thin case studies to try to obscure their message (“we hate conservatives”) but the timing of this book strips that away. Where were the calls from these professors to eliminate the filibuster when Republicans had the majority in this chamber? Similarly where was the call to make it easier to amend the constitution when the previous president was in office? Both were professors during this time…however it seems that the time is only ripe to mention these “reforms” when they only advantage one party (theirs) at one flashpoint in time. How short sighted and ridiculous. This book rivals the ridiculous nature of a Mark Levin book, but at least Levin doesn’t try to mask his bombastic root message.
Two stars is generous here. This is a ridiculous book.
The authors may ultimately be grateful that the cumbersome process to amend the constitution serves as a protection against pure populist movements, which could otherwise be utilize to amend the constitution to strip presidential term limits, thereby allowing the potential for unlimited rule by a president reviled by a significant portion of the country.
That the authors cloak their combination anti conservative bias and extremely flawed assumptions in thin case studies to try to obscure their message (“we hate conservatives”) but the timing of this book strips that away. Where were the calls from these professors to eliminate the filibuster when Republicans had the majority in this chamber? Similarly where was the call to make it easier to amend the constitution when the previous president was in office? Both were professors during this time…however it seems that the time is only ripe to mention these “reforms” when they only advantage one party (theirs) at one flashpoint in time. How short sighted and ridiculous. This book rivals the ridiculous nature of a Mark Levin book, but at least Levin doesn’t try to mask his bombastic root message.
Two stars is generous here. This is a ridiculous book.
October 29, 2023
Nice analysis of how various democracies failed and succeeded. America is an outlier in failing to reform anti democratic issues like the electoral college and the senate representation. It will be up to the Gen Z generation to build a truly multi racial democracy.
April 9, 2025
Everyone should read this. Started out being underwhelmed and inundated by history facts I would never remember and then it got extremely interesting and now I feel shook and informed and motivated.
September 30, 2023
Their suggested solutions will never happen
July 26, 2025
This was fascinating. I learned SO much. I think this one is going to stick more than their previous book. I’ll be thinking about it again and again. They definitely don’t hide their bias and I’m not 100% on board with everything they mention but they provide some interesting viewpoints that I’ve never considered. Also, they gave a shout out to MWEG near the end. (!)
January 24, 2024
This was an interesting read. The book discusses how autocratic, political minorities have maintained power in counter-majoritarian, democratic systems. It goes through several examples in history around the world before focusing on the United States. Examples given of counter-majoritarian systems in the US include the Senate, the Electoral College, lifetime judicial appointments, a constitution that is too hard to amend, and unequal suffrage to all citizens.
While the US was a model of democracy for the world in the 18th century, it has fallen behind greatly as all other democracies have made huge strides in the 20th century in modifying their systems to ensure more democratic governments. The US is the only democracy to not tame or abolish its upper legislative house (Senate), gives lifetime appointments to judges without term limits or mandatory retirements, uses an electoral college or indirect election for the chief executive, and has a constitution that is now essentially impossible to amend.
While the US was a model of democracy for the world in the 18th century, it has fallen behind greatly as all other democracies have made huge strides in the 20th century in modifying their systems to ensure more democratic governments. The US is the only democracy to not tame or abolish its upper legislative house (Senate), gives lifetime appointments to judges without term limits or mandatory retirements, uses an electoral college or indirect election for the chief executive, and has a constitution that is now essentially impossible to amend.
November 6, 2024
These Harvard professors are good. They cover a lot of ground in explaining one aspect of how we have gotten to the point of a literal tyranny of the minority. They cover events in American history as well as in other nations that repeated the same mistakes and others who corrected the constitutional issues and have preserved and enhanced their democracies. Sadly, the U.S. is not one of those yet.
As they point out, we have come to consider the U.S. Constitution as a sacred document. We have minimized the number of amendments to it, and that has hurt us. We obviously don't want to make it too easy to amend, but other nations have found a middle ground and their democracies have shrugged off some of the problems we are now facing. The authors also point out evidence that many of the Founding Fathers vehemently opposed some of the compromises made at the Constitutional Convention, and expected that as times change, the Constitution would also change with them. If you want to be an Originalist, you have to keep that in mind. Um, read the Federalist Papers, conservatives. And the diaries of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and others. Or just read this book. And heck, the almighty Senate filibuster isn't even in the Constitution. There is certainly nothing sacred about it.
Through examples, the authors have laid out the problems we face and their potential solutions. In our current political environment, I don't see any of them happening quickly. But they are real solutions and they can be implemented with patience and dedication over time. Slavery did not end overnight, nor did the end of Jim Crow or the arrival of women's suffrage. We can't give up.
As they point out, we have come to consider the U.S. Constitution as a sacred document. We have minimized the number of amendments to it, and that has hurt us. We obviously don't want to make it too easy to amend, but other nations have found a middle ground and their democracies have shrugged off some of the problems we are now facing. The authors also point out evidence that many of the Founding Fathers vehemently opposed some of the compromises made at the Constitutional Convention, and expected that as times change, the Constitution would also change with them. If you want to be an Originalist, you have to keep that in mind. Um, read the Federalist Papers, conservatives. And the diaries of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and others. Or just read this book. And heck, the almighty Senate filibuster isn't even in the Constitution. There is certainly nothing sacred about it.
Through examples, the authors have laid out the problems we face and their potential solutions. In our current political environment, I don't see any of them happening quickly. But they are real solutions and they can be implemented with patience and dedication over time. Slavery did not end overnight, nor did the end of Jim Crow or the arrival of women's suffrage. We can't give up.
October 3, 2024
Basic? Sure. But the knowledge is essential in the year 2024 and probably for the foreseeable future as anti-democracy forces run wildfire here in America and across the globe. Kind of a sibling read to How Democracies Die, any problems I had with that book are addressed here.
January 21, 2025
I can’t help but feel as though they should have waited until after the 2024 election to release this and make some edits
June 22, 2025
Great book similar to their first book on American democracy. I really appreciated the historical context on American democratic frameworks and the pivotal points that entrenched American institutions. I think the list of items to complete for our democracy is amazing but my one qualm is how to get rid of anti democratic actors other than just protesting. Perhaps that’s a different book to read than what Ziblatt and Levitsky have written. Overall easy and very in depth research.
December 24, 2024
Desenvolvendo a teoria de que o sistema de freios e contrapesos das instituições norte-americanas, contrariando a ideia que de que serviriam o propósito de proteger minorias desfavorecidas contra a tirania da maioria eleita (ainda que tais cuidados no sistema eleitoral não tivessem sido desenhados com tal propósito, mas como uma forma de se chegar, na redacção da Constituição, a um acordo possível), os autores, Steven Levitsky e Daniel Ziblatt, propõem uma narrativa diferente, onde as minorias que se têm aproveitado deste sistema não são as vitimas, mas sim movimentos de tendência autoritária, para, minando a democracia por dentro, capturá-la, de modo a plantar nela as suas ideias.
Muito centrado no modelo norte-americano, os autores questionam o modelo de eleição para o Senado (2 deputados por estado), o colégio eleitoral, o filibuster (possibilidade de um senador falar ininterruptamente para impedir uma discussão ou aprovação) ou os cargos vitalícios dos juízes do Tribunal Constitucional. Sobretudo a falta de representatividade e os sucessivos bloqueios caucionados pelos vetos que o sistema permite.
Apesar de publicado em 2024, o livro saiu antes da reeleição de Trump. Gostaria de saber se os autores mantêm a sua ideia, de que se deve alterar o sistema no sentido de dotar as maiorias de ferramentas para as exercerem de forma mais efectiva, quando neste momento, em que os republicamos, alvos de tantas críticas (quase sempre com razão, na minha opinião) por parte dos autores, têm maioria na câmara dos representantes, no senado e no voto popular. Não fosse o veto no senado (neste momento, a favor dos Democratas, minoritários) e o modelo proposto pelos autores dotaria os republicanos de uma maioria total.
Tudo isto para dizer que não existem sistemas democráticos perfeitos. Este livro, e as medidas propostas pelos autores, apesar de bem intencionadas, são insuficientes e, em alguns cenários, contraproducentes, para tornar a democracia americana mais democrática (passe o pleonasmo) e representativa. No entanto, gosto de livros que levantam questões, que argumentam bem os seus pontos de vista, e que tentam, na medida do possível, contribuir para depositarmos na sociedade um olhar diferente.
Muito centrado no modelo norte-americano, os autores questionam o modelo de eleição para o Senado (2 deputados por estado), o colégio eleitoral, o filibuster (possibilidade de um senador falar ininterruptamente para impedir uma discussão ou aprovação) ou os cargos vitalícios dos juízes do Tribunal Constitucional. Sobretudo a falta de representatividade e os sucessivos bloqueios caucionados pelos vetos que o sistema permite.
Apesar de publicado em 2024, o livro saiu antes da reeleição de Trump. Gostaria de saber se os autores mantêm a sua ideia, de que se deve alterar o sistema no sentido de dotar as maiorias de ferramentas para as exercerem de forma mais efectiva, quando neste momento, em que os republicamos, alvos de tantas críticas (quase sempre com razão, na minha opinião) por parte dos autores, têm maioria na câmara dos representantes, no senado e no voto popular. Não fosse o veto no senado (neste momento, a favor dos Democratas, minoritários) e o modelo proposto pelos autores dotaria os republicanos de uma maioria total.
Tudo isto para dizer que não existem sistemas democráticos perfeitos. Este livro, e as medidas propostas pelos autores, apesar de bem intencionadas, são insuficientes e, em alguns cenários, contraproducentes, para tornar a democracia americana mais democrática (passe o pleonasmo) e representativa. No entanto, gosto de livros que levantam questões, que argumentam bem os seus pontos de vista, e que tentam, na medida do possível, contribuir para depositarmos na sociedade um olhar diferente.
January 3, 2025
8/10 This book was sobering. Written during Biden's term about Republicans blocking any progress at every turn, the stakes are high. On the other side of the 2024 election, it's hard to read this book and not believe that we have failed and that we will be set back 100 years in the name of "Making America Great Again." But it also gave me hope that we've been here before. A lot of us are tired of fighting and resisting Trump's tyranny, but we've got work to do.
This was an improvement on How Democracies Die. The authors didn't have the context they do now. At first, they wrote the filibuster being sacred in democracy. In this book, they saw how it has been abused.
We need some big reform, and it's gonna take a hell of a lot of work to get there. Our institutions won't save us. We have to save them.
This was an improvement on How Democracies Die. The authors didn't have the context they do now. At first, they wrote the filibuster being sacred in democracy. In this book, they saw how it has been abused.
We need some big reform, and it's gonna take a hell of a lot of work to get there. Our institutions won't save us. We have to save them.
December 27, 2023
I’ve been in this choir for nearly 20 years, but that doesn’t diminish the accuracy of the preaching. Levitsky and Ziblatt have written the book I’ve always wanted to write, and it’s a thorough accounting of my country’s greatest challenge: we are constantly subject to tyranny of the minority. Also known as “tyranny.”
October 18, 2023
If you have done only a brief reading on the set up/running of the United States government, then this is the book for you. For me, it was rather tedious to get through as it was the most basic book on government I’ve read since high school. It has its place, just not one on my shelf.
June 30, 2024
The research for the book is well done. However, the analysis of that research is hackery. This book claims to be a work of academics but it is political hackery disguised as academics. The authors don’t even pretend to be unbiased in their analysis. This is progressive dog whistling.
September 20, 2025
At times when I find the subject matter to be very important (and well researched), I tend to overlook problems with the readability of a book, and give it a higher score than I really want to give it. But this time, I can't shy away from the fact that I found this to be a really difficult book to read, and therefore the lowish "three" score.
Gentlemen, I apologize. :( This is truly important work and thank you for writing this book, but good golly miss molly it's a chore to read this thing. Especially when not too long ago I read the "American Midnight" book by Hochschild, which was also a horror story about American democracy, but was a book you actually flew through.
If I was a university student, writing a paper on the governmental mechanisms of the United States, and why the mechanisms actually are NOT democratic and allow a minority to restrict and overrule the wishes of the majority, than this is definitely a book I would use. The authors expose how, at various levels, things like the electoral college, and the first past the post voting system, and the lifetime positions of the Supreme Court, and importantly, the incredible challenges of amending the constitution, mean that a minority can rule a majority, in the United States.
Regarding the constitution: Not only do constitutional amendments require the approval of two-thirds majorities in bot the House and the Senate, but they must be ratified by three-quarters of the states. (page 218).
I mean, Good God, that essentially traps you into living under a constitution that has little connection to modern day society. In a few pages describing attempts to get rid of the electoral college (and apparently there have been 700+ attempts to get rid of the electoral college over the years), the authors slide into how, in 1969, a landslide movement of popular sentiment "almost" got rid of the electoral college, but the Senate killed it. Senators from southern states, some well known segregationists, pushed to keep the electoral college because it was a way for them to maintain their influence on the election of the president.
AND... key to the premise of the book... it's not even that fair to say that the Senate killed it.. because a majority of 54 senators actually voted to move forward... but this was short of the 2/3 majority vote needed to do so. (i.e. an overly high %, compared to other countries where a "simple majority" would do the trick). So... a "minority" over ruled the "majority" and kept the United States from passing a bill which would do away with the electoral college, and a system which allows a president who does NOT win the national popular vote, to become President. (page 221)
We stand at a crossroads: either America will be a multiracial democracy or it will not be a democracy at all (page 225)
Anyway - incredibly important information is in these pages, but wow, it's a chore to read these pages.
Gentlemen, I apologize. :( This is truly important work and thank you for writing this book, but good golly miss molly it's a chore to read this thing. Especially when not too long ago I read the "American Midnight" book by Hochschild, which was also a horror story about American democracy, but was a book you actually flew through.
If I was a university student, writing a paper on the governmental mechanisms of the United States, and why the mechanisms actually are NOT democratic and allow a minority to restrict and overrule the wishes of the majority, than this is definitely a book I would use. The authors expose how, at various levels, things like the electoral college, and the first past the post voting system, and the lifetime positions of the Supreme Court, and importantly, the incredible challenges of amending the constitution, mean that a minority can rule a majority, in the United States.
Regarding the constitution: Not only do constitutional amendments require the approval of two-thirds majorities in bot the House and the Senate, but they must be ratified by three-quarters of the states. (page 218).
I mean, Good God, that essentially traps you into living under a constitution that has little connection to modern day society. In a few pages describing attempts to get rid of the electoral college (and apparently there have been 700+ attempts to get rid of the electoral college over the years), the authors slide into how, in 1969, a landslide movement of popular sentiment "almost" got rid of the electoral college, but the Senate killed it. Senators from southern states, some well known segregationists, pushed to keep the electoral college because it was a way for them to maintain their influence on the election of the president.
AND... key to the premise of the book... it's not even that fair to say that the Senate killed it.. because a majority of 54 senators actually voted to move forward... but this was short of the 2/3 majority vote needed to do so. (i.e. an overly high %, compared to other countries where a "simple majority" would do the trick). So... a "minority" over ruled the "majority" and kept the United States from passing a bill which would do away with the electoral college, and a system which allows a president who does NOT win the national popular vote, to become President. (page 221)
We stand at a crossroads: either America will be a multiracial democracy or it will not be a democracy at all (page 225)
Anyway - incredibly important information is in these pages, but wow, it's a chore to read these pages.
March 6, 2024
This is an absolutely must-read book no matter you're political leanings. The authors dig deep into American institutions and history to show how we've become a nation run by, even terrorized by, the minority. Our Constitution was an imperfect mishmash resulting from compromises, with many of its most powerful aspects the result of compromises, where second or even third choices were enshrined in order to 1) get disparate groups to buy into the greater framework, and 2) provide a basis for future generations to make adjustments as necessary. But some of those aspects, e.g., electoral college, gerrymandering, etc., along with non-constitutional conventions such as the filibuster (and especially today's filibuster-less filibuster) have become severely outdated and dangerous to democratic institutions, and even the survival of our country. The authors demonstrate the danger and provide the means of correcting course such that the minority doesn't dictate to the majority while still protecting the rights of the minority (the original intention of the framers).
This book is exceptionally well researched and written in language everyone can understand and must understand if we want to save our country.
David J. Kent
President, Lincoln Group of DC
Author, Lincoln: The Fire of Genius: How Abraham Lincoln's Commitment to Science and Technology Helped Modernize America
This book is exceptionally well researched and written in language everyone can understand and must understand if we want to save our country.
David J. Kent
President, Lincoln Group of DC
Author, Lincoln: The Fire of Genius: How Abraham Lincoln's Commitment to Science and Technology Helped Modernize America
February 18, 2025
Essential reading for the time we live in. Regardless of your political views, very thorough analysis on how the US government is set up and how our democracy is being threatened. It was written in 2021 and they make several references to how hopefully the Trump presidency is behind us and we will learn from it..oh how that has aged poorly😅
Key takeaways:
The constitution is not a perfect document, it was the first of its kind, as most governments at the time were monarchies. Much of the setup such as the electoral collage was built as a compromise to keep a young nation together and has opportunities to be updated.
Our two political parties have changed vastly over time have been heavily influenced by the fight for or against multi racial democracy and voter suppression.
In modern times, the republican party has been radicalizing as they know that their popular vote is decreasing. Instead of becoming more inclusive and adapting to the changing US demographics, they’ve decided to radicalize and seize power, taking advantage of our outdated “majority” power balance checks that favor the minority.
Key takeaways:
The constitution is not a perfect document, it was the first of its kind, as most governments at the time were monarchies. Much of the setup such as the electoral collage was built as a compromise to keep a young nation together and has opportunities to be updated.
Our two political parties have changed vastly over time have been heavily influenced by the fight for or against multi racial democracy and voter suppression.
In modern times, the republican party has been radicalizing as they know that their popular vote is decreasing. Instead of becoming more inclusive and adapting to the changing US demographics, they’ve decided to radicalize and seize power, taking advantage of our outdated “majority” power balance checks that favor the minority.
October 2, 2024
This is an excellent and timely read. It clearly points out how counter-majoritarian institutions, mainly the electoral college and the Senate’s filibuster, are impediments to the advance of American democracy and shows how difficult democratic reforms come about in the US. It paints a bleak scenario of a country who never really confronted it’s anti-democratic past and that is now facing another crucial tipping moment. On the one hand, it’s somehow comforting to know with more detail that a lot of the mainstreaming of outdated, undemocratic and racist ideas are largely pushed by partisan minority, and that they do not reflect the preferences of most Americans. At the same time, I finished the book quite pessimistic on the actual prospects for change. I really hope I’m proved wrong.
September 23, 2024
3.5 stars. Great ideas, and interesting history of how other world governments have fixed their messed up systems. But still, even with the authors proposed ideas for “fixing our democracy”, there’s a huge lack of hope in our future. So much of what is needed to reform and repair our government depends on restricting the tyrannical minority, which won’t happen while the same minority remains in skewed power.
November 5, 2024
Interesting book, it mentioned many contemporary issues with today's USA politics and the obstacle that the Constitution has become to achieve true democracy. Granted, the Constitution was erected that way, but it seems unwise to make it so difficult to change its articles. Even the founding fathers understood the need to change things that might become troublesome with time.
The comparison with countries like Ecuador, and Bolivia -with regards to Constitutions that might be too easy to change- is arguable, and almost seems like a since both countries have had lots of political turmoil that has been dragging for a while -many of which, BTW, was caused by USA's interventionalist international policies, something the authors "forgot" to mention.
Overall, the book is really good, and does put a question mark on how solid and just the system is, if at the end can be rigged to favour one particular party.
The comparison with countries like Ecuador, and Bolivia -with regards to Constitutions that might be too easy to change- is arguable, and almost seems like a since both countries have had lots of political turmoil that has been dragging for a while -many of which, BTW, was caused by USA's interventionalist international policies, something the authors "forgot" to mention.
Overall, the book is really good, and does put a question mark on how solid and just the system is, if at the end can be rigged to favour one particular party.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 503 reviews