More Perfect Constitution: 23 Proposals to Revitalize Our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country Book

Let me start out by saying that I liked this book. It was not outstanding in how it made me think new things, but it did provide grounding for its ideas and present good historical and political arguments for change. The writing was largely approachable but still scholarly.

I do not agree with all the proposals, but definitely agree that on the whole most would be more beneficial than the current system. The book is written more to convince you that some change along the lines Sabato presents is warranted, less so that his proposed amendments are the best possible versions of the changes. There is more political arguments focusing on historical views and happenings than on a set of similar alternatives that might have better results in the future. And this is in line with the book's goal, to advocate for change, not to specify exactly what change should be. Sabato is not, strictly speaking, proposing actual amendments, with full text versions and clause-by-clause analysis, but rather making an argument for certain general changes to be specified by others.

All proposed changes are structural, centrist, and somewhat conservative--not in a right vs left sense, but rather in that they preserve and reapply foundational principles underlying the founder's original intentions to a very different world, rather than seeking new principles or novel applications of them. They do not try to upset aspects of our national government that still work, even if they work in ways that are marginally unfair or could be significantly improved; something must be manifestly counter to the public interest rather than merely having occasional negative outcomes or consequences.

All changes are structural rather than content driven. There is no talk about whether to expand or curtail the power of the federal government, only shuffling the balance of power (on the matters of war-making and line-item vetoes), and otherwise tweak term lengths, limits, congressional size. Other than a call for a universal national service, all his proposed changes are directed at the federal government itself, not at the rights of the people or the states. He intentionally avoids controversial topics such as abortion, gun rights, definitions of marriage, etc..

You can see his full list here:

Highlights:
Finite Federal Judge Term Lengths
Line-Item Veto
Term Limits
Larger House and more Senators for more populous states
More competitive and impartially drawn House districts
Balanced Budget
Automatic voter registration
Campaign Finance Reform
National Service
Regular Conventions to propose Amendments

Major disappointments (that is, ideas or topics I expected to see proposed, discussed, or at least referenced) include:
1. No reference, at all, to ranked-choice voting, or alternatives to the current single-member house districts, or anything else that might upset a system of single-choice first-past-the-post geographically based system of elections, despite how reductionist they are regarding the public's views. Since Sabato proposes electing all Senators at the same time, and that some states get 3-4 Senators, RCV would actually allow residents of virtually every state who are either Democrat or Republican to always have someone from their state representing their views in the Senate. So many potential benefits (and some complexity and acknowledged downsides) are just completely ignored.
2. No alternative to reinforcing the duopoly that is America's two party system. Indeed, Sabato is convinced of the importance of the two party system and seems to want to silence or eliminate third parties entirely, letting a sway of 51-49 to 49-51 Democrat to Republican or vice versa completely change the entire political landscape in an area, state, or country. A two party system, according to him, is a strong and necessary stabilizing force lest we fractionalize our polity into single issue sectional small parties that for some reason would be ineffectual or dangerous (despite their presence and role in government in the vast majority of democracies in the world). And though Sabato seems to appreciate the role that Progressivism at the beginning of the 1900s played in getting several constitutional amendments passed, and the Ross Perot Campaign in calling attention to the need to balance the budget, he intentionally wants to keep all debate and discussion within the existent two parties rather than rock the boat.
2. No anti-rider amendment. Sabato talks about line item vetoes for their ability to cut down pork-barrel spending, but does not seem as concerned about the role of riders (to be fair, riders would be subject to line-time vetoes, but that is a separate question). Sabato notes that 43/50 states have line-time veto for their governors, but does not also note that 43/50 states have single-subject rules that prevent riders. A president striking riders would cause political turmoil, while one not doing so when they have the power to could have the same effect (think about a pro-choice president striking or not striking the Hyde Amendment barring federal funding of most elective abortions). Single subject laws prevent that possibility in most states, and should in the federal government as well.
3. The popular vote for president (which is mentioned but dismissed in two pages), rather than mending the electoral college (larger, no faithless electors, etc.). Sabato claims this is the best way to keep recounts local, reinforce the two party system, respect federalism, and seems completely fine that a popular winner could still lose occasionally (although less likely with the reforms he proposes, including expanding the number of electors, though Al Gore's popular vote winning margin of over 540,000 would still translate to an electoral victory margin of just 1 vote.). Why not just have an amendment requiring states to submit popular vote totals rather than electors, forcing recounts to be local? And ranked choice voting to ensure an actual popular winner is always guaranteed, instead of risking throwing an election "spoiled" by a third party candidate actually getting votes (and so ensuring no majority winner) to the House of Representatives, whether or not they vote as individuals or state blocks?
4. Keeping the prestige of the Senate. The Senate has more powers in terms of confirmation of judges and ratification of treaties than the House, and yet it is heavily tilted toward the less populous states (and thus its representation of the average US person violates the one-person, one-vote principle Sabato touts inconsistently). True, Sabato wants to make the Senate less (un)equal by giving some populous states have 3-4 votes instead of 2, but that just means that residents of California each have only 1/35th the Senators of Wyoming residents rather than 1/70th. Perhaps the Senate should still represent the States by some numerical formula rather than the people, but why not spread its special powers out to the House, so that both houses of Congress need to approve such things, or perhaps the President can pick one house to confirm appointments (and maybe the other can veto by a small supermajority, so you can confirm a federal judge with 51% of the House unless 60% of the Senate says no, and vice versa). Why perpetuate the less democratic Senate having more authority?
5. "National Senators" sound like a good thing! How about they be elected nationally, not just former presidents/VPs? (and why do they get to serve for life, when we just talked about limiting federal judge terms being limited because serving for life risks them being out of touch?) Why not award the position to several runners-up in each presidential contest to the Senate for terms equal to the president's term, that way there is no fully disenfranchised minority each presidential election? Whereas currently nearly half of the country has to sit by and watch someone they did not vote for lead the country for four-eight years, while someone who came pretty close to filling that role is left on the side of the road as just a private citizen. The original idea of VP being the runner up in presidential votes would be have a spiritual successor, allowing non-plurality candidates, and those who voted for them, a significant voice in government. We could have 4-20 such National Senators, popularly elected by the nation, with no disenfranchised minority, and maybe even party limits on their number so that third party candidates would be significantly represented nationally for the first time. Seriously, there are many wholly disenfranchised groups of individuals who cannot elect a single representative to the national government since they are spread too thin. Wait, Sabato likes the two party duopoly, and decried parliamentary systems where 5% of the national vote means one actually gets national representation in a legislature (which is odd when, given that we have 435 Representatives, with many elected by slim margins, it would appear that only the support of 0.2% of the national populace is needed for each Representative to earn their spot). Nationally there are more Green Party members and Libertarian Party members each than the entire population of Wyoming; nevertheless, Wyoming residents get representation nationally because of a geographic coincidence. You could also lessen the temptation of and need for the Free State Project and the like, urging like-minded people to emigrate en masse to one low-population state in an attempt to finally have some control over their own governance. If the principle behind "one-person, one-vote" is that government officials represent people, not trees or land, than why not apply that same idea of representing people rather than land on the national scale, to allow more than two persons sharing one party ticket to be nationally elected to the government each four years?
6. Still requiring Amendments, even those approved by a constitutional convention, to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, without mentioning any alternatives. Again, the one-person-one-vote principle gets sacrificed to preserve the status quo, which given the unequal populations of the states means that . How about ratification by enough states to represent 3/4 of the population? And why should the states be the sole ratifiers rather than the people? The constitution gave the states the right to appoint senators and presidential electors, but the people do those jobs now. Why not require each state at its next election to put each proposed amendment on the ballot, needing 60% approval of the people nationwide, or 3/4 of state governments, or state governments representing 3/4 of the people, in order to pass? Sabato talked about "popular democracy" here and there being the reason for many changes to the constitution, but never with regard to actual amending, except as a non-binding test referendum on ideas that might lead to proposed amendments.
7. No talk about federal voting representation for territories. This is just general injustice, "taxation without representation", which Sabato seeks to rectify only in DC for some reason. DC has a larger population than 2 states, it is true, but Puerto Rico has a larger population than 20(!) states, and does not get voting voice in Congress, and does not have a voice in the presidential election, even though DC does.
8. No reference to the Equal Rights Amendment. Not even one. Sabato is steering clear of amendment proposals that are controversial and are more social-content than government-structure, I know. It did not have to be a proposal of his, and one could argue that the ERA is less needed as subsequent legislation has addressed major inequities (though I certainly would not), but inasmuch as he is talking so many different proposed amendments that passed or failed or were sunseted, to never at least touch upon this one clear and recent example of the process and what we can/should learn from it is striking and hugely disappointing. (Also, if I recall correctly he tends to use male language when referring to elected officials, most notably the president and VP, even in abstract and with reference to future office holders; this may be accurate historically, but all the sadder for that, and all the worse for a message that is supposed to talk about fixing historical assumptions and preconceptions that do not hold in the modern world. Sabato paid lip service to representative diversity as a reason to increase the Supreme Court size, but did not mention any reforms to better get representative diversity in Congress or the White House)

This book was written in 2007, before Obama and Trump. Perhaps we can forgive Sabato for not presciently considering the following ideas then:

9. Require votes on presidential nominations for civil and judicial positions within a certain period of time (sure, Merrick Garland would have been turned down by a Republican Senate, that is their constitutional role, just require them to hold the vote within two months of nomination)
10. Specifying more explicitly what constitutes impeachment, including a longer non-exhaustive list of offenses, as well as the process of the impeachment trial, subpeona power of Congress vs executive privilege, standards of evidence, burden of proof, etc. Did Obama commit impeachable offenses regarding his selective enforcement of the ACA provisions, given that he is tasked to "faithfully execute the laws"? Did Trump when he made phone calls and talked about investigating Hunter Biden or finding votes in Georgia? The vagueness of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" leaves far too much up to argumentation and partisan posturing when it comes to the president, rather than action (or, when appropriate, inaction). Also, the constitution should be clear about whether those seeking office or those who formally held office can be impeached and tried to disqualify them from future office holding.
11. Limit the presidential pardoning power to not cover the president, family, or those acting on the president's orders, in their interests, or in concert with their wishes (thankfully this has not been directly tested yet, nor is it likely to these days, but it would still be good to eliminate the possibility and uncertainty).

I know this is a review of Larry Sabato's book, and yet I spend much space writing about what is NOT in the book. But when you talk about reforming the foundational document of a nation, what you do not say is as important as what you do say. I do appreciate how Sabato's website regarding his 23 proposals includes a link for you to submit your suggestions for a "24th". One wonders if he will write a follow-up. But the major idea, that the Constitution needs some updating and we should make it happen, is well-argued and well-taken. Hence, four out of five stars.