More or Less

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511976612.017

12 - More or Less

Searching for Regulatory Balance

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 June 2011

Bruce E. Cain

Edited by

Guy-Uriel E. Charles ,

Heather K. Gerken and

Michael S. Kang

Show author details

Bruce E. Cain: Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Guy-Uriel E. Charles: Affiliation:
Duke Law School
Heather K. Gerken: Affiliation:
Yale Law School
Michael S. Kang: Affiliation:
Emory University, Atlanta

Book contents

Get access

Summary

The existence of a broad consensus about core democratic features and values creates a basic reform template for democratizing authoritarian regimes and dictatorships. But because there is far less theoretical or political agreement about the relative merits of different forms of democratic representation and governance, there is no simple guide for improving established democracies. Democratic political institutions and practices have changed considerably over time and vary widely beyond the most basic attributes. Consequently, there is no international consensus about which country is the most democratic, which means that there are several perfectly acceptable alternative paths for emerging democracies to follow. This poses no serious problem for world peace and harmony, but it greatly complicates political reform in the United States. Simply put, it is difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate purported reform efforts absent a single, agreed-on democratic ideal form.

All democracies are based on the principle of popular sovereignty (i.e., that power resides in the people), but there is no universal consensus in the United States or internationally about what this means. Is direct voter control more democratic than representative government? Do less restrictive voter eligibility rules always make a system more democratic? Which rule for collective decisions is best: unanimity, supermajority, or a mere plurality of citizens? Are proportional seat allocation rules superior to single-member, simple plurality rules? Should popular sovereignty be limited for the sake of minority rights and fairness?

Type: Chapter
Information: Race, Reform, and Regulation of the Electoral Process
Recurring Puzzles in American Democracy
, pp. 263 - 286

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511976612.017 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ansolabehere, Stephen, Fougere, Josh and Nathaniel, Persily, “Partisanship, Public Opinion and Redistricting,” this volume, p. 228.

Berelson, Bernard, Paul Lazarsfeld, and McPhee, William, Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954.Google Scholar

Cain, Bruce, “New Forms of Democracy? Reform and Transformation of Democratic Institutions,” in Cain, Bruce E., Dalton, Russell J. and Scarrow, Susan E., eds., Democracy Transformed?: Expanding Political Opportunities in Advanced Industrial Democracies, pp. 1–20, 2003.

Cain, Bruce E., Apollonio, Dorie and Drutman, Lee, “Access and Lobbying: Looking Beyond the Corruption Paradigm,” 36 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 13, 2008.Google Scholar

Cain, Bruce E., Frederick, Douzet and Lefebvre, Hugo, “La Nouvelle Carte Politique des Etats-Unis,” Herodote, 1, n132, 2009.Google Scholar

Cain, Bruce E., Gash, Alison and Oleszek, Mark, “Conflict of Interest Legislation in the United States: Origins, Evolutions and Inter-Branch Differences,” in Conflict of Interest and Public Life: Cross-National Perspectives, Christine Trost and Alison Gash, eds., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.Google Scholar

Campbell, Angus, Converse, Phillip E., Miller, Warren E. and Stokes, Donald E., The American Voter, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.Google Scholar

Dahl, Robert A.A Preface to Democratic Theory, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956, Chapter 4.Google Scholar

Dalton, Russell and Gray, Mark, “Expanding the Electoral Marketplace,” in Cain, Bruce E., Dalton, Russell, and Scarrow, Susan, eds., Democracy Transformed? New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.Google Scholar

Elmendorf, Chris, “Empirical Legitimacy and Election Law,” this volume, p. 129.

Fabbrini, Sergio, Compound Democracies, New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.CrossRef Google Scholar

Fishkin, James, The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995.Google Scholar

Foley, Ned, “Democracy in the United States, 2020 and Beyond,” this volume, p. 220.

Fung, Archon, “Popular Election Monitoring,” this volume, p. 194.

Garrett, Elizabeth, “Hybrid Democracy.” 73 George Washington University Law Review 1096, 2005.

Gerber, Alan, “New Directions in the Study of Voter Mobilization,” this volume, p. 184.

Gerken, Heather and Michael, Kang, “An Institutional Turn in Election Law Scholarship,” this volume, p. 91.

Hasen, Richard L., The Supreme Court and Election Law: Judging Equality from Baker v Carr to Bush v Gore, New York: New York University Press, 2003.Google Scholar

Hasen, Richard L., “Beyond Incoherence: The Roberts Court's Deregulatory Turn in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life,” 92 Minnesota Law Review, 2008.

Hasen, Richard L., “Judges as Political Regulators,” this volume, p. 109, 112.

Hutchings, Vincent, Wong, Cara, Jackson, James and Brown, Ronald, “Whose Side Are You On? Perceptions of Competitive Threat in a Multi-Racial Context,” this volume, p. 71.

Issacharoff, Samuel, “Constitutional Courts and the Boundaries of Democracy,” this volume, p. 153.

Issacharoff, Samuel and Karlan, Pamela S., “The Hydraulics of Campaign Finance Reform,” 77 Texas Law Review1705, 1999.Google Scholar

Issacharoff, Samuel and Pildes, Richard H., “Politics as Markets: Partisan Lockups of the Democratic Process,” Stanford Law Review, 643 (1998), 567.Google Scholar

Jackman, Robert, “Political Institutions and Voter Turnout in the Industrial Democracies,” American Political Science Review, 81, n2 (1987).CrossRef Google Scholar

Karlan, Pamela, “The Second Reconstruction, the Third Reconstruction and the Reconstruction of Voting Rights,” this volume, p. 46.

Mayer, Kenneth, Werner, Timothy and Williams, Amanda, “Do Public Funding Programs Enhance Electoral Competition?” in McDonald, Michael P. and Samples, John, eds., The Marketplace of Democracy: Electoral Competition and American Politics, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2006.Google Scholar

Pildes, Richard, “Voting Rights: The Next Generation,” this volume, p. 24.

Polsby, Nelson, The Consequences of Party Reform, New York: Oxford University Press, 1983.Google Scholar

Stark, Andrew, Conflict of Interest in American Public Life, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.Google Scholar

Trost, Christine and Gash, Allison, Conflict of Interest and Public Life: Cross-national Perspectives, New York:Cambridge University Press, 2008.CrossRef Google Scholar

Book contents

12 - More or Less

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive