(4 of 11)
The founding fathers emphasized that the U.S. was a republic, which simply meant that they would bow to no king, but they had no intention of establishing a democracy, which most of them regarded as synonymous with mob rule. Thus they decreed that the President should be elected not by direct popular vote but indirectly by an Electoral College, and that Senators should be chosen by state legislatures (a method that was changed by the 17th Amendment of 1913). They did so not only because they feared the vicissitudes of what conservatives liked to call "the tyranny of the majority," but also because they wisely saw the values of circumspection and consensus. If every public issue can be submitted to an instantaneous plebiscite —a Utopian (or nightmarish) possibility that cable television has now made technically possible—then there is little time and little impetus for thoughtful debate, for the analysis of dangerous consequences, or for the conciliation of opposing minorities. All of these are necessary for the formulation of policies that truly serve the public interest. All of them can best be achieved by a process known as intermediation, in which various groups of citizens and various layers of Government have an opportunity to shape and influence the raw expression of public opinion. This was one of the major purposes that the political parties once served, and that is why their influence needs to be restored in the presidential elections, in the operations of Congress and throughout the governmental process. The whole process depends on the building of coalitions; otherwise, the only rule of politics becomes the rule of every man for himself —the exact opposite of the purpose for which Jefferson said governments are instituted.
Though any alteration of the Constitution should be regarded with extreme caution, there is much else that needs to be done. Indeed, there is hardly a single element in the U.S. system that could not benefit by some serious scrutiny, some reevaluation, some alteration.
How LIGHTNING STRIKES
The first area to consider involves the nation's most basic political act: choosing a President. There was a widespread view during last year's campaign that any system that forces the American public to choose between a Ronald Reagan and a Jimmy Carter for the most powerful office in the world is a system gone wrong. This sour judgment was not dispelled by the fact that the previous rules produced mediocrities like Coolidge and McKinley and incompetents like Pierce and Harding. Nor is it overwhelmed by the argument that Reagan and Carter would have won under any system, since they were demonstrably the most popular candidates in their parties. Nor even by the possibility that Reagan may turn out to be a good President.