Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point

Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 2023

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Download PDF

Summary

Background

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Introduction

Chapters 1-2

Chapters 3-4

Chapters 5-6

Chapters 7-8

Key Figures

Themes

Symbols & Motifs

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Tools

Beta

Discussion Questions

Chapters 5-6Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Chapter 5 Summary: “Fettered Majorities”

Levitsky and Ziblatt explore counter-majoritarian institutions in Chapter 5. The authors begin by explaining the two key pillars of liberal democracy: “collective self-rule (majority rule) and civil liberties (minority rights)” (137). Democracies have protections in place, known as counter-majoritarian institutions, to prevent misuse of power by popular majorities.

Counter-majoritarian institutions protect two domains from majorities. The first is civil liberties, including freedom of religion, assembly, press, and speech. The US Bill of Rights protects civil liberties. Unfortunately, many of these rights remain unevenly protected or poorly defined. Levitsky and Ziblatt use the Supreme Court 1940 decision in the Minersville School District v. Gobitis as an example. The Court upheld mandatory flag saluting over religious freedom, ruling on the side of “‘village tyrants’” (139). The Court reversed its decision in 1943 because its original decision infringed on civil liberties.

Counter-majoritarian institutions also help protect the rules of democracy. People elect governments for a finite period in democracies. While they are in power, the government’s temporary majority must not change the political system to weaken the opposition. An important minority right is that the opposition can compete fairly in elections. Mechanisms must be in place to protect the democratic process from majority rule. Two examples of these mechanisms include legislatures needing supermajorities (at least two-thirds) to amend constitutions, and independent judiciaries.

Counter-majoritarian institutions are critical for a healthy democracy. However, excessive counter-majoritarian institutions can cause democracies to die because majorities should have considerable say, particularly with elections and legislative decision-making. Levitsky and Ziblatt note that “this is the danger of counter-majoritarian institutions: rules designed to fetter majorities may allow partisan minorities to consistently thwart and even rule over majorities” (142).

In liberal democracies, politicians that win the most votes should hold political office over those who win fewer votes. Democracy gets in trouble when candidates win elections despite losing the popular vote. Politicians and political parties that also win elections should be able to govern and make laws. Excessive use of supermajority rules in legislative institutions can take away majorities’ ability to govern.

Counter-majoritarianism also faces a temporal challenge. First, the decisions of earlier generations of politicians tie the hands of majorities in future generations because constitutions are typically difficult to amend (known as the “problem of the dead hand”). Constitutions become problematic when they no longer “reflect society’s needs and prevailing values” (146) and are near-impossible to change. Second, the lack of term limits or retirement age for judges also proves problematic. Judges appointed decades ago might be out of touch with present-day majorities, striking down laws or policies that reflect majority opinion.

The US finds itself with eight excessive counter-majoritarian institutions. These include the US Bill of Rights, a Supreme Court with lifetime appointments for its justices, federalism, a bicameral Congress, a malapportioned Senate where states have the same representation despite population differences, the filibuster, the Electoral College, and the supermajority rules for constitutional amendments. Levitsky and Ziblatt conclude, “It’s not unfettered majorities that threaten us today. It’s fettered majorities that are the problem” (164).

Chapter 6 Summary: “Minority Rule”

In Chapter 6, Levitsky and Ziblatt focus on how partisan minorities “consistently defeat or impose policies on larger majorities, and worse still, use the system to entrench its advantages” (168). Minority rule over democracy occurs when these conditions are in place. Minority rule is when a political party wins fewer votes than its opponents but maintains political power.

The US is moving towards minority rule for three reasons. First, the US Constitution protects small or low-population states. The Founding Fathers granted this concession so these states would ratify the US Constitution. Today, however, the asymmetry between low- and high-population states has increased exponentially. States with lower populations have more influence than those with higher populations in the US Senate (as a reminder, each state has 2 senators regardless of population).

Second, the US has urbanized since its early days. The most populous states are now also the most urban. Thus, the small-state bias turned into a rural-state bias. The authors note that rural jurisdictions are now overrepresented in three key national political institutions: the Supreme Court, the US Senate, and the Electoral College. Third, the US constitutional system now has a partisan bias. For most of the country’s history, the two political parties included urban and rural bases, which prevented rural overrepresentation from favoring one side. With the rise of urban centers, immigration, and race-driven transformation of the American political system, this is no longer the case in the 21st century. The US Constitution’s rural bias is now a partisan bias.

The authors next turn to four national political institutions that are at risk of minority rule. The Electoral College represents the first pillar. In most states, the Electoral College follows a winner-take-all system. The Electoral College has a small rural bias since the US Senate overrepresents lower-population states. This gives the Republican Party an advantage. Republican Party candidates have won the presidency several times in the 21st century despite losing the popular vote.

The US Senate represents the second pillar. The Republican Party can control the Senate without winning national political majorities because of its dominance in low-population, rural states. Levitsky and Ziblatt underscore that “at no time during the twenty-first century have Senate Republicans represented a majority of the US population” (176), yet they have controlled the US Senate several times.

The third pillar is the Supreme Court. Due to the biases seen in the Electoral College and US Senate, presidents who lost the popular vote nominate Supreme Court justices. Republicans are more likely to appoint justices for this reason. In fact, in the 21st century, Republican presidents appointed four of the nine current justices despite Republicans winning only a minority of the popular vote for the presidency or US Senate. The Supreme Court rulings have increasingly been at odds with public opinion because “the court’s conservative majority was imposed by a partisan minority” (177).

The final pillar is the electoral system. Both national and state legislative elections follow the winner-take-all system. This system “manufactures artificial majorities and sometimes allows parties that win fewer votes to control legislatures” (179). Geographic sorting and “gerrymandering,” or when a political party manipulates the boundaries of an electoral constituency to favor their party, have increasingly favored Republican candidates, allowing them to dominate state legislatures even after losing the popular vote.

Minority rule matters because it allows partisan minorities to pass state and national legislation that disagrees with the viewpoints of most Americans. The current politics of abortion and gun control are clear examples. The antiquated elements of these four pillars are allowing Republican extremism to take them over, threatening American democracy. While the US has not descended to minority rule, the authors believe the USA is close, especially if Americans do not reform their political institutions.

Chapters 5-6 Analysis

The authors argue that majority rule can be dangerous, even today. The government of Viktor Orbán in Hungary demonstrates how the majority can use their parliamentary power to enact electoral and constitutional reforms that gut judicial checks on federal power and disenfranchise the opposition. The government of Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel similarly tried to use his majority power to eviscerate the judiciary system. Both examples highlight how majority rule can assault democracies. Counter-majoritarian institutions help minimize tampering by majorities. However, fear of the “tyranny of the majority” can have unintended consequences. This fear can lead to “tyranny of the minority,” which is just as detrimental to democracies.

Levitsky and Ziblatt focus on this point because they are extremely concerned that the US is descending into minority rule, which would crush American democracy. Some critics have cast doubt on their assertion. These critics argue that American democracy has faced periods of instability before, such as during the Civil Rights era, and survived. Levitsky and Ziblatt counter by emphasizing the unprecedented role partisanship plays in American politics today. During the Civil Rights era, the two major parties remained committed to democratic norms. Today, however, the authors argue that The Changing Nature of the Republican Party suggests that the Republican Party has turned its back on democracy, making the situation far more dangerous for the US today than ever before.

Rather than trying to fix their political party to make it more democratic by embracing The Importance of Reform, Republican leaders only care about staying in power, further underscoring that semi-loyalists dominate the party. The authors point to a new fringe theory within the Republican party to support this point. This theory is called “independent state legislature doctrine.” Supporters of this theory interpret two clauses in the Constitution to mean that state legislatures can set election rules. Normally, scholars and policymakers interpret these clauses to refer to states’ general lawmaking process. Given that Republicans control several key election swing states, the authors worry that extremists could try to award themselves the right to pick a state’s election winners. If this happens, the US will no longer be a democracy.

In this section, the authors also continue to build on their assertion regarding The Antiquated Elements of American Democracy, arguing that these elements within the US political system are detrimental to democracy. They focus on eight counter-majoritarian institutions that they find especially troubling. The US constitution represents one example. It is the oldest active written constitution in the world. At the time of its writing, the foundational ideas behind modern democracy (e.g., equal rights and full suffrage) did not exist. While there have been amendments to the constitution over the years, these are rare. The US constitution still reflects a society from the 18th century rather than the present day.

The authors also question the myth of the superiority of American founding institutions. Many Americans still hold the country’s Founding Fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington, in high esteem. They believe the Founding Fathers could do no wrong, which means the country’s constitution is above criticism. While Levitsky and Ziblatt agree that the Founding Fathers were quite radical for their time, they also did not live in a democracy, nor did they have a democratic model to aspire to. Some founders even openly rejected democracy. For example, the Massachusetts delegate Elbridge Gerry believed democracy was “the worst […] of all political evils” (150). The institutions the Founding Fathers put in place thus reflect their own time rather than today. These same institutions, the authors argue, are weakening modern American democracy.