The common story that the US Constitution is the light of global democracy obviously disregards common standards in many cases. “Our Constitution has at least one radical feature: it is not designed for a society characterized by economic inequality.” This is somewhat in line with what Professor Ganesh Sitaraman said in his article “Our Constitution was not built for this” (2017). Law professor Ganesh Sitaraman believes the United States faces a stark choice: either continue on the current path of rising economic inequality and risking oligarchy, or rebuild the middle class and reclaim the republic that the founding fathers originally envisaged. Robert Dahl, political theorist and professor of political science at Yale University, explores the methods by which the Constitution fails to respect the balance of representation in his book How Democratic is the American Constitution? (2003). Dahl firmly believed that conditions required the framers to craft the Constitution in three ways. The first being that a republican model of government was useful. Second, due to 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 Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay Reading Robert A. Dahl's book, I was very impressed but I also had a lot of questions. Along the way, I got lost several times because I didn't know what he was talking about, but I soon realized. Reading this opened my eyes more as I had no idea the Constitution or Congress was formed this way. One answer I would like to share is that while Dahl discusses the Senate and the Electoral College at length, he does not discuss important counterarguments in favor of these systems. For example, a national majority popular vote would create a very inefficient electoral system, leading to a greater likelihood of harm. Reporting is also becoming very problematic on a national scale. Dahl does not address these questions. Dahl did an excellent job opposing the fear of majority government and provided excellent evidence demonstrating that many Framers abandoned their positions against majority government after the Constitution was created. On the other hand, reading Professor Sitaraman's article, I understood more than misunderstood. As I read, I continued to agree with what was said. The Constitution is certainly not designed for a society characterized by economic inequality. To conclude this essay, the Constitution supports the values ​​and principles of democracy to a large extent. With the Bill of Rights and the many articles set forth in the Constitution, the values ​​and principles of democracy are very well supported in order to maintain order throughout the country. The Declaration of Independence and many recent events also support this view. The U.S. Constitution is often invoked as the foundation of American democracy, but aspects of it are often taken for granted. Robert Dahl's book is a useful reminder that the American Constitution is far from being the only possible basis for a democratic system and that it is perhaps too far from ideal..