Politics

• Author: Neil K. Komesar
• Pages: 1956-1958

Page 1956

Constitutions are fundamentally linked to the character of politics. At the most obvious level constitutions structure the political process. The United States Constitution defines who may serve in various elected offices, the terms of office (the frequency of election), the number of representatives, and the manner of their election. But, as important if not as obvious, constitutions in general and the United States Constitution in particular are also shaped by basic concerns about the character of politics and its malfunctions or evils. These concerns are reflected in the structures of politics established in the Constitution, the debates about the Constitution, and the evolution of constitutional law over the last two hundred years.

Two basic visions of political malfunction?one that stresses fear of the many (majoritarian bias) and one that stresses fear of the few (minoritarian bias)?coexist in traditional American views of government and constitutional history. Minoritarian bias supposes an inordinate power in the few at the expense of the many. Political power and influence, whether gained by graft, propaganda, or campaign support, often require organization and resources. Here a majority, each of whose members suffers only small loss from a government action, can be at a significant disadvantage to a minority with large per capita gains. The total loss to the majority may far outweigh the gains to the minority, but if the per capita loss is small enough, members of the majority may not even recognize that loss. Even if a member of the majority knows of the proposed legislation and recognizes its dangers, each individual has small incentive to spend time or money in organizing others. These efforts are further frustrated by the likelihood that other members of the majority will be inclined to "free ride" (i.e., refuse to participate or assume that others will carry the load).

Majoritarian bias is a completely opposite response to the same skewed distribution of impacts that characterizes minoritarian bias. Here the numerical majority, with its small per capita interests, imposes disproportionate losses on an intense, concentrated minority. The difference between majoritarian and minoritarian bias lies in suppositions about the political process. If we suppose that everyone understands and votes his interests and if we assume a political process that counts votes for or against but does not consider the severity of impact or the intensity of feeling about the issue, a low-impact majority can prevail over a high-impact minority, even though the majority gains little and the minority is harmed greatly. The power of the many lies simply in numbers, and malfunctions arise because the few are disproportionately harmed.

Concerns about both majoritarian and minoritarianbias have been with Americans throughout their constitutional history, from the framing of the original Constitution to the modern era. The period of the framing and RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION shows clear concern about these forms of bias. Indeed, the two opposing constitutional positions of the time FEDERALISM and ANTI-FEDERALISM?can be defined by differences in their concern about majoritarian and minoritarian bias.

The authors of THE FEDERALIST recognized the existence of both forms of bias, expressed concern about both, but seemed to worry more about majorities. JAMES MADISON, in particular, placed great emphasis on the dangers of the majority in Federalist #10...