Lani Guinier, "Second Prom and Second Primaries: The Limits of Majority Rule"

Questions for Making Connections Within the Reading:

1. Lani Guinier distinguishes between three different models for governance: the winner-take-all majority rule; an electoral system that awards victory to the candidate who has received a plurality of the votes; and, finally, a system based on a "principle of proportionality." What are the differences between these three systems? Is one system more democratic than the others? More fair? More just? Are these terms interchangeable?

2. The primary solution to the problem of minority under-representation in the political process has been to redraw the lines that establish voting districts. What's wrong with this as a solution? Why can't redistricting lead to the kind of proportional representation that Guinier favors?

3. At the end of her essay, Guinier calls for us to move "away from the chimera of achieving a physically integrated legislature in a color-blind society and toward a clearer vision of a fair and just society." Why is "achieving a physically integrated legislature in a color-blind society" a "chimera"? And what would a "fair and just society" look like if it abandoned this chimera? How would it differ from the society we have today?

Questions for Writing:

1. Lani Guinier sets out, in "Second Proms and Second Primaries," to redefine democracy. What is the difference between her vision of democracy and a democracy based on majoritarianism? How do fairness and justice get defined in each of these understandings of democracy? What are the dangers you see in each of these understandings?

2. "[W]hen a prejudiced majority excludes, refuses to inform itself about, or even seeks to thwart the preferences of the minority," Guinier writes, "then majority rules loses its link with the ideal of reciprocity, and so its moral authority." Why is Guinier concerned with reciprocity and moral authority? What do these ideas have to do with elections and the democratic process? Does democracy depend on the ideal of reciprocity?

Questions for Making Connections Between Readings:

1. Guinier argues that "[a] homogeneous legislature in a heterogeneous society is simply not legitimate." In making this case, Guinier focuses on underrepresented minorities. In so doing has she fallen into the "antiuniversalist" trap that Martha Nussbaum describes in "Women and Cultural Universals"? Does Guinier's approach support, diverge from, or conflict with Nussbaum's argument that the goal of public planning should be to enhance universal human capabilities? Is a commitment to basic human rights compatible with the differential voting plan Guinier proposes?

2. Throughout "Second Proms and Second Primaries," Guinier argues that changing the electoral process will improve the quality of communication between the races, between constituencies, and across parties. What would Deborah Tannen make of Guinier's call to "encourage genuine debate"? Is the ideal of democracy that Guinier refers to approached through dialogue, debate, or some other mode of communication? What is the best way for citizens in a democracy to resolve their disagreements?

More Guinier assignments...