Lifestyle
How the Founding Fathers' concept of 'Minority Rule' is alive and well today
A voter leaves a voting booth in Concord, N.H., the during primary election on Jan. 23, 2024.
Timothy A. Clary/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Timothy A. Clary/AFP via Getty Images
A voter leaves a voting booth in Concord, N.H., the during primary election on Jan. 23, 2024.
Timothy A. Clary/AFP via Getty Images
It’s a fundamental tension in a democracy: How do you have majority rule in a way that also protects minority rights? Journalist Ari Berman says the Founding Fathers struggled with that question back in 1787 — except, for them, white male landowners were the minority in need of protection.
“Most of the founders were skeptical of the public’s ability to elect the president directly,” Berman says. “So they created this very complicated situation in which electors would elect the president instead of the people electing the president directly.”
In his new book, Minority Rule, Berman connects the debates and compromises of the country’s founders to contemporary politics. He says the founding fathers created a system that concentrated power in the hands of the elite and that today, institutions like the Electoral College and the Senate — designed as a check against the power of the majority — are having much the same effect.
Berman notes that in the country’s first presidential election, in 1789, only a small fraction of the population was eligible to vote — and in certain states, voters were only allowed to vote for electors, not the candidates themselves.
Though the right to vote has since been expanded, Berman says the democratic process remains deeply flawed. He points out that in 2000 and again in 2016, the presidential candidate who won the popular vote did not win the electoral vote. Additionally, he says, because the Constitution stipulates that each state gets two senators, regardless of its population, “smaller, whiter, more conservative states have far more power and representation in the Senate then larger, more diverse, more urban states.”
“What we see right now is the same kind of thing, in which a privileged, conservative, white minority is trying to suppress the power of a much more diverse multiracial governing majority,” Berman says. “And that’s a very dangerous situation for American democracy.”
Interview highlights
Minority Rule, by Ari Berman
Farrar, Straus and Giroux
hide caption
toggle caption
Farrar, Straus and Giroux
Minority Rule, by Ari Berman
Farrar, Straus and Giroux
On the Constitution as a flawed document
We venerate the Constitution as a civic religion. I think we would be much greater served to look at the Constitution as a whole document and say, there are some remarkable parts of this document, but there’s also some really flawed parts of this document that we still haven’t corrected. Because the really remarkable thing is that even as America has democratized in the centuries since — and nobody would argue that America isn’t more democratic now than it was back then — some features of the Constitution have become more undemocratic.
On the creation of the Electoral College to uphold minority rule
Most of the founders were skeptical of the public’s ability to elect the president directly. They felt like the public would be uninformed, or it would be chosen by the largest states, or would be chosen by free states in a way that would hurt the South. So it’s interesting, one of the themes that runs through the book and runs through the founding is that these smaller minorities wanted protection. And when I may say smaller minorities, I don’t mean minority groups. I mean the small states wanted protection, the slave states wanted protection, and they felt like they would get that protection in the Electoral College. So they created this very complicated situation in which electors would elect the president instead of the people electing the president directly.
On how representatives from Delaware scuffled the initial plan to have Senate representation being based on population
James Madison and other prominent framers wanted the Senate to be based on proportional representation, so they wanted it to be based on population. So larger states like Virginia would have more representation than smaller states like Delaware. But the smaller states rebelled. And there’s this amazing moment at the Constitutional Convention where the attorney general of Delaware gets up and he tells the likes of James Madison, if you don’t give us the same representation, we’re going to find a foreign ally who we’re going to join with instead, and we’re going to leave the United States of America. And that was a stunning demand. The idea that they would go rejoin England or they would join France instead, if they didn’t have the same level of representation, meant that the larger states had no choice but to give in to the demand of the smaller states to ratify the Constitution.
But what Madison worried about is that it would allow what he called a more objectionable minority than ever to control the U.S. Senate, because if the smaller states had the same level of representation as the larger states, that was inevitably going to lead to minority rule. And Madison worried that would get worse as more states join the union. And, of course, that’s what’s happened today, where the gap between large and small states is dramatically larger than it was back in 1787.
On how the two Senator per state representation affects minority rule
Just to give you one really stunning stat, by 2040, 70% of the population is going to live in 15 states with 30 senators. That means that 30% of the country, which is going to be whiter, more rural, more conservative, is going to elect 70% of the U.S. Senate. So the trend in the U.S. Senate is becoming more imbalanced and more undemocratic. And what’s really interesting to me is a lot of conservatives want to go back and they want to quote the framers, but they ignore that a lot of the framers, including James Madison, the architect of the Constitution, had grave concerns about some of the institutions they were creating, particularly the structure of the U.S. Senate.
Lauren Krenzel and Joel Wolfram produced and edited this interview for broadcast. Bridget Bentz, Molly Seavy-Nesper and Meghan Sullivan adapted it for the web.
Lifestyle
How should we behave online? : It’s Been a Minute
Lifestyle
Chanel’s Bruno Pavlovsky on Reengineering an Iconic Brand
Lifestyle
They were world-class tennis rivals. Now friends, they’ve teamed up against cancer
Once rivals on the tennis court, Martina Navratilova, left, and Chris Evert have become close friends in retirement. They are pictured above at the French Open in 1986.
Trevor Jones/Getty Images Europe
hide caption
toggle caption
Trevor Jones/Getty Images Europe
Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova were the most successful women’s tennis champions of their generation. Both were 18-time Grand Slam tournament winners — and each other’s greatest rivals.
Evert, a Florida native, became a tennis star in her teens. Navratilova was born in communist Czechoslovakia, and emerged as a player after Evert was established. They first faced off during a match in Akron, Ohio, in 1973, when Evert was 18, and Navratilova was 16. Evert won, but Navratilova left an impression.
“I remember thinking to myself, holy cow, when this young girl gets into better shape, she is going to be a force to be reckoned with,” Evert says. “She had so much talent. Her hands were quick, she had a big first serve, she had a big forehand, and she just was so powerful.”

Two years later, on the day she lost a semifinals match to Evert at the U.S. Open, Navratilova defected to the U.S. In the years that followed, her tennis game improved. Though she and Evert had initially been friendly, the friendship cooled as their rivalry heated up.
“Playing Chris was difficult because how can you not like Chris? What’s not to admire?” Navratilova says. “She was like the epitome of cool.”
The new Netflix documentary Chris & Martina: The Final Set tells the story of how Evert and Navratilova re-established their friendship and how they both faced cancer in retirement. Evert was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2021; Navratilova was diagnosed with throat and breast cancer in 2022.
“I can’t get away from her,” Evert jokes. “We had a 15-year career, and then we got cancer at the same time. It really is freaky, but I always say: If I want someone to be in the trenches with me, it’s Martina because she has been so supportive and so understanding.”

Navratilova agrees: “We have such a level of trust that we know whatever we say to each other, it stays there. We give each other the best advice we know how to. And there is no ulterior motive, no playing games.”
At the time that this interview was taped, Evert and Navratilova were both in remission from cancer. But late last week, Evert disclosed she’d recently been diagnosed with a recurrence of ovarian cancer.
“We know whatever we say to each other, it stays there,” Martina Navratilova says of her friendship with Chris Evert.
Netflix
hide caption
toggle caption
Netflix
Interview highlights
On supporting each other through cancer
Evert: There are a lot of phone calls between us. … I don’t cook, but Martina would bake bread for me, and her wife Julia would cook, make some chicken soup. … I got a lot of food from Martina. She got a necklace from me.
Navratilova: I get jewelry from Chris, she gets food from me.
Evert: Martina’s and my relationship — because we’ve had one for 50 years — is not the type where we have to talk to each other every day to maintain the closeness. I always knew she was there. She always knew I was there if we needed to talk, and that was that.
On the weakness they experienced with cancer
Navratilova: Chris’ diagnosis and treatment was much more life-threatening than mine, percentage wise, but my treatment was more difficult physically. … I was in New York for seven weeks and I literally sat on a yoga mat, maybe half an hour of the seven weeks, and did some stretching. I couldn’t even do the down dog pose because I would have fallen down. I had absolutely zero strength left.
Evert: The chemo kicked my butt, let’s put it that way. … It left me very weak, very, very weak. After chemo I would have three or four days of intense nausea and I just would feel tingling in my body and it just wasn’t nice. I didn’t have the energy. To walk six blocks was a big deal for me. And it was foreign. You know, it felt like it wasn’t my body, for sure.
On watching the old footage of their matches together for the documentary
Navratilova: For me, it was fun watching with Chris, because we had different reactions to what happened on the court. But what impressed me is how well we played with those wooden rackets. Because you know what? Those rackets are not easy to play with. But you try to put yourself in there physically, what it was like, mentally, what it is like. And it’s like, “Oh, I should have gone down the line,” or, “I can’t believe I missed that shot.” Or “Chris, you had such a great pass.” It was amazing. So it was impressive. … I wish I could still have that six-pack, but anyhow.

Evert: I remember feeling genuinely happy for her. I remember it was her first Wimbledon. That’s always been her dream since she defected. Her family couldn’t be there to watch her. She was all alone. And I just was happy for it. And I knew that this was gonna be one of many for her to win.
On defecting to the U.S. in 1975 when she was 18 years old
Navratilova: I was thrilled to be in the States. I always loved American cars. And when you ordered a ham sandwich, you got, like, two inches of ham and two slices of bread. Whereas growing up, you had thick bread and one slice of ham. So I thought I was in heaven. And it was $2.30 for that sandwich. I still remember it. I couldn’t believe how much ham I was getting.
Lauren Krenzel and Nico Gonzalez Wisler produced and edited this interview for broadcast. Bridget Bentz, Molly Seavy-Nesper and Beth Novey adapted it for the web.

-
Los Angeles, Ca43 minutes agoLeBron James informs Lakers he will play elsewhere next year
-
Detroit, MI58 minutes ago5 realistic cornerback trade targets for the Detroit Lions after Terrion Arnold’s release
-
San Francisco, CA1 hour agoHeadlines, June 30 – Streetsblog San Francisco
-
Dallas, TX1 hour agoLIVE | Ivory Coast, Norway meet for World Cup knockout match at Dallas Stadium
-
Miami, FL1 hour agoEvery Dolphins head coach’s start in Miami from worst to best
-
Boston, MA1 hour agoHistorian clears up one of the biggest myths about the Boston Tea Party
-
Denver, CO1 hour ago
Nemanja Jokic, the older brother of\u00a0Denver …
-
Seattle, WA2 hours ago3 Seahawks Rookies Who Must Step Up Right Away