Podcast Summary

New Books Network – "When Should the Majority Rule – and Is It Time to Resign Democracy?"

People Power Politics podcast, September 16, 2025
Guests: Stephen Levitsky & Daniel Ziblatt
Host: Nick (CEDAR, University of Birmingham)

Episode Overview

In this episode, Nick interviews acclaimed Harvard political scientists Stephen Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt about their influential paper, "When Should the Majority Rule?", recently published in the Journal of Democracy. Drawing on their scholarship, including books like Tyranny of the Minority and How Democracies Die, the discussion explores the balance between majority rule and counter-majoritarian institutions, with particular focus on the U.S. political system and its contemporary crises. The conversation engages both theoretical frameworks and real-world examples, examining where democracy can falter if these forces are not correctly balanced—and what reforms may be possible or necessary.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Origins of the Paper and the U.S. as an Outlier

• Levitsky and Ziblatt were drawn to the topic while researching U.S. democracy for their book, Tyranny of the Minority. They discovered "just what an outlier the United States is institutionally in terms of the excessive sort of number of counter-majoritarian institutions and the excessive degree of counter-majoritarianism." (Levitsky, 01:23)
• The U.S. is unique among democracies for allowing the loser of the popular vote to win the presidency, for its malapportioned Senate, and for Supreme Court justices’ lifetime tenure—all reinforcing minority rule and making the U.S. distinct from peer democracies.

2. Consequences of Excess Counter-Majoritarianism

• Ziblatt lays out the "feedback effect" this has on politics, stating that "if you have a political system that repeatedly doesn't deliver on what clear majorities want... it creates frustration... and helps fuel popular sentiment." (Ziblatt, 03:32)
• Overrepresentation of rural (typically more conservative) areas amplifies one party—now the Republican Party—giving them an easier path to power, undermining the self-correcting process of democratic competition.
  • Quote: "This creates an uneven playing field where these institutions… now makes it easier for one party to win power than the other party. So it's an uneven playing field, which is a problem for democracy." (Ziblatt, 04:26)

3. Essential vs. Antithetical Counter-Majoritarian Institutions

• Levitsky distinguishes between necessary protections (civil liberties, super-majority requirements for constitutional amendments) and antithetical institutions (those enabling minority party rule).

  • Essential Protections:
    • "Rules protecting basic civil liberties and civil rights... basic individual rights that no majority should under any circumstance be able to threaten." (Levitsky, 07:27)
    • "Institutions that sustain the basic rules of the game... constitutional reform or constitutional amendment should always require super majority." (Levitsky, 07:45)
  • Antithetical Institutions:
    • "Institutions that prevent majorities from winning elections. We think that there is no theory of democracy that justifies anything other than the party that wins the most votes should win office." (Levitsky, 09:05)
    • U.S.-specific examples: Electoral College, Senate Filibuster.
    • Quote: "The Electoral College... permits the loser of a popular vote to win the presidency, which I think is indefensible under any democratic theory." (Levitsky, 09:39)

• Ziblatt summarizes: "There are certain things that ought to be beyond the reach of majorities... [but also] things that need to be within the reach of majorities in order for democracy to count as a democracy." (Ziblatt, 10:19)

4. Current U.S. Crisis: Is This a Failure of Majority Rule?

• Levitsky argues the deep problem is "the election of a radicalized party that has ceased to be committed to democracy." (Levitsky, 11:52)

• However, "our counter-majoritarian institutions, which have empowered, protected and empowered a radicalized Republican Party... contributed in multiple ways to the problem we had." (Levitsky, 12:34)

• Hypothetical: "if we just had majority rule... we'd have a 6–3 liberal majority in the Supreme Court" and very different history (Levitsky, 13:38).

• Ziblatt: Republicans' repeated wins without majorities creates a "low expectations" effect; even a narrow 2024 popular vote win was seen as a sweeping mandate. Quote: "The Republicans win by a point and a half and think they have this major mandate... they're used to winning power without any majority." (Ziblatt, 15:55)

5. Possibilities and Pitfalls of Political Reform

• Nick asks about implementing reforms given the current "ship on the water" context. Is there hope for consensus on constitutional change—or does risk lie in the wrong reforms?
• Ziblatt: Each democracy’s needs are unique. The framework they provide is intended as a "yardstick" to evaluate reforms—not a one-size-fits-all recipe.
  • Quote: "People who say, oh, we need more majoritarianism because that's democracy... we can actually say, well actually what kind of majoritarianism are you talking about?... we're providing a set of benchmarks." (Ziblatt, 18:41)
• Levitsky: Examples of poor reforms (e.g., Thailand’s unelected prime minister; Israel’s rapid rule-changes) and some hope for democratizing reform in the U.S.—though the current public climate is resistant, and American political culture has come to treat the Constitution as "sacred" and untouchable.
  • Quote: "Every democracy needs to be open to reform... our intention... is simply to open up or contribute to a public debate about constitutional reform." (Levitsky, 21:41)

6. Models of Healthier Democratic Design

• Are there contemporary "success stories"? Ziblatt highlights Germany as a useful model for the U.S.: a federal but proportional-representation-based democracy, making for fairer, more responsive government.

  • Quote: "Just as in all facets of life, there's been an increase in knowledge and a lot of improvement... the German Constitution is one particular kind of relevant model for the US because it's a federal system, but combines that with a proportional representation electoral system." (Ziblatt, 23:53)

• Norway is also discussed—once highly undemocratic, but now ranked as the world’s most democratic nation, in part because of the relative ease of amending its constitution.

  • Quote: "Part of the reason is that the Constitution's been improved over time... it's easier to amend the Constitution that today I think Norway's democracy has a much safer ground than America's." (Ziblatt, 25:20)

• Levitsky lists four innovations the U.S. might learn from: proportional representation, robust voting rights, term limits on the Supreme Court, and direct presidential elections.

  • Quote: "Four institutions that emerged in the world after their passage of the U.S. constitution that seem worth taking seriously... [these] were important democratizing advances." (Levitsky, 26:09)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Stephen Levitsky, on American exceptionalism:
  "The excessive protection of partisan minorities is part of the problem in the United States." (01:50)
• Daniel Ziblatt, on electoral distortion:
  "These overrepresented rural areas also mean that there's an overrepresentation of one particular party... so it's an uneven playing field, which is a problem for democracy." (04:26)
• Levitsky, on civil liberties:
  "Most of us agree that right to free speech, free press, association, assembly, conscience, are basic individual rights that no majority should under any circumstance be able to threaten." (07:27)
• Ziblatt, on democratic benchmarks:
  "We're providing a set of benchmarks that we hope people can take up to help arm democrats, people who are really committed to democracy." (18:41)
• Levitsky, on U.S. constitutional debate:
  "Every democracy needs to be open to reform... We forgot [how to improve our system]... we treat the Constitution as something that's only to be observed beneath glass and is not to be touched." (21:41)

Timestamps for Major Segments

| Timestamp | Segment / Topic | |:-------------:|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 00:06 | Introduction of guests and the podcast’s theme | | 01:23 | Why focus on majority rule now? U.S. as an outlier | | 03:32 | Negative consequences of excess counter-majoritarianism | | 06:31 | Essential vs. non-essential counter-majoritarian institutions | | 09:39 | U.S. Electoral College and filibuster as barriers to democracy | | 11:52 | Current U.S. crisis – is it about majority rule or something deeper? | | 13:38 | The direct impact of counter-majoritarianism on legal and political outcomes | | 18:10 | Feasibility and risks of reform | | 23:50 | Models: Germany and Norway as "good balance" examples | | 26:09 | Reforms the U.S. could learn from |

Episode Takeaways

• Majorities must sometimes be checked, but the design of these checks matters. Civil liberties and the integrity of democratic rules are the proper domains for counter-majoritarian protections—not the right to govern after losing elections.
• The U.S. is uniquely tilted to minority rule, especially in the contemporary two-party context. This is a historical product, not a necessity, and is fueling polarization and legitimacy crises.
• Models exist for improvement, notably in proportional representation and constitutional flexibility, but political and cultural obstacles are immense.
• Democrats must be mindful: calls for "more democracy" or "more checks" require scrutiny—what is protected, and whom is being empowered matters.
• Constitutional reform should be a living conversation, not a relic—otherwise, democracy becomes brittle rather than resilient.

This episode is a must-listen for anyone interested in democratic design, comparative politics, and the challenges facing both established and emerging democracies today.