The common story that the American Constitution is the light of overall democracy, in many cases, is evidently contemptuous of common norms. “Our Constitution has at least one radical feature: It is not designed for a society with economic inequality.” is somewhere in line with what Professor Ganesh Sitaraman said in his article “Our Constitution was not built for this” (2017). Ganesh Sitaraman, a law professor, believes the United States faces a stark choice: either continue down its current path of growing economic inequality and risk of oligarchy, or rebuild the middle class and reclaim the republic originally envisioned by the Fathers Founders. Robert Dahl, a political theorist and professor of political science at Yale University, explores the ways in which the Constitution fails to practice balanced representation in his book How Democratic is the American Constitution? (2003). Dahl firmly believed that conditions forced the framers' construction of the Constitution in three ways. The first, since only a model of republican government is useful. Second, because of the presence of the thirteen colonies, a federal system was a necessity, not an option, and a particular republic. Finally, the two compromises, slavery and representation in the Senate, could not be avoided. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay As I read Robert A. Dahl's book, I was quite impressed but I also had a lot of questions. I got lost a couple of times along the way because I didn't know what he was talking about, but I soon figured it out. Reading this was more eye opening because I had no idea that the Constitution or congress was formed this way. One answer I would like to share is that although Dahl discusses the Senate and the Electoral College at length, he does not discuss important counterarguments in support of these systems. For example, a nationwide majority popular vote would create a highly inefficient voting system, resulting in a greater likelihood of errors. The relationships become highly problematic even on a national scale. Dahl does not address these issues. Dahl did an excellent job arguing against the fear of majority rule and provided excellent evidence that many authors abandoned their positions against majority rule after the creation of the Constitution. On the other hand, reading Professor Sitaraman's article, I understood more than I misunderstood. As I read, I kept agreeing with what was said. The Constitution is certainly not designed for a society characterized by economic inequality. To conclude the essay, the Constitution largely supports the values ​​and principles of democracy. With the Bill of Rights and the numerous articles contained in the Constitution, the values ​​and principles of democracy are very well supported in order to maintain order throughout the country. This is also supported by the Declaration of Independence and many events that have happened lately. The U.S. Constitution is often invoked as the foundation of American democracy, but some aspects of it are often taken for granted. Robert Dahl's book is useful as a reminder that the American Constitution is far from the only possible basis for the democratic system and may be too far from the ideal one.