The first reason given by its framers to "ordain and establish" the US Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union". Implicit was the recognition that the Union still wouldn't be completely perfect because of the Constitution. The document is based on the awareness that human beings are prone to corruption, even if we are the crowns of creation. People with too much power are likely to abuse it, no matter how excellent their characters or burnished their credentials. This awareness resulted in our Constitution's system of checks and balances, which continues to prove itself essential.

This assumption of imperfection goes back at least as far as the warning words of the prophet Samuel. The people of Israel were clamoring for Saul to be made their first king. They wanted a monarch to lead their army so that they could protect themselves like other nations. Samuel pleaded with them to let God continue to be their only king. The prophet correctly predicted what would happen. The king would become greedy and corrupt. He would seize whatever he wanted and oppress the people. "And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the Lord will not answer you in that day." (I Samuel 8: 18)

But God told Samuel to give the people what they wanted anyway. It seems that God did not want the perfect to be the enemy of the best that could be achieved under the circumstances. God knew that it wasn't enough for himself to be the only king of Israel. Some kind of temporal authority was needed, something more effective than the loose tribal confederation of Israel at the time. The anointing of Saul was a step toward a more perfect union, and Samuel went along with it. But the story of Samuel and Saul makes it clear that the gap was still wide between the ideal reign of God and the real government of human beings. We like to think that democracy narrowed that gap, but there's still room to "form a more perfect Union".

We Americans see ourselves as the champions of democracy for the whole world. Certainly in 1787, when the Constitution was written, our nation led the way for others to follow. But when they followed, many of these nations developed forms of democracy more advanced than ours. Our system of governance is remarkably durable and has served us well. But if we stand back and look at democracy around the world, we can see that many other nations have "a more perfect Union" than ours. They have more effective ways of making their governments responsive to the will of their people, while maintaining checks on power. People in these nations were boggled by the election of George W. Bush despite his having received many fewer votes than Al Gore. The electoral college system, designed in the horse and buggy days when election results were hard to determine nationwide, resulted in a tainted presidency.

In the book of Samuel, God blessed the will of the people, even though it was far from perfect. God seemed to be saying, "They want a king? They ignore my words through my prophet? Oh well. Let their will prevail anyway." Israel's new monarchy was created by a majority of "we, the people", with the minority, represented by Samuel, anointing the king and accepting the new government's authority. America formed a system of government based on the will of the majority of the people, structured so that the minority, most of the time, would honor its legitimacy.

The will of the people is blessed. So how can we make sure it is more faithfully expressed? This is not just a matter of practical politics; there is something of the divine in the quest for "a more perfect Union". Today there are people who want to change the 14th Amendment in order to narrow the definition of citizenship. But what good is citizenship if our voices don't count? It's time to abolish the antique system of electing our president, as stipulated in the 12th Amendment.

If we copied the electoral system of Germany, similar to that used in other modern democracies, here's how a ballot would look here in Los Angeles, where I live:

I'd vote for representatives to my state legislature both at a regional level and at a local level. So my ballot would have two parts. On the regional part, I'd be voting for a party which would get seats proportional to the number of votes it receives. The "greater LA" regional part of my ballot would give me a choice of parties: Democratic, Republican, Green, Libertarian, etc. Under each party would be a numbered list of candidates, chosen by the party and ranked according to who would be first to be seated. I'd fill in the circle for the party I chose. On the second part of the ballot, for my district within my region, I'd be voting for one individual candidate. I could vote for a candidate from any party. Whoever got the most votes would be elected to that one seat.

This would result in more points of view being represented in the legislature. At the regional level, I'd be represented by a group of legislators from different parties, chosen proportionally to the votes for those parties. At the local level, I'd be represented by whomever got the simple majority of votes. This way, people affiliated with minority parties would be represented in the legislature – something that seldom happens now. In California and other parts of the country, people have sorted themselves out geographically, according to their social and political views. Even a truly fair system of drawing legislative boundaries wouldn't make much difference in making legislative races truly competitive, under our current "winner takes all" system. The result is a decline in voter participation. A Democrat living in a Republican-dominated district is unlikely ever to have his or her viewpoint represented in Congress or in a state legislature. This dampens interest in voting. It also makes primary elections the real battles in many if not most districts. This results in a skewing of election results toward the extremes in both of our two dominant parties, as the most extreme elements of each party are best at turning out the vote.

"A more perfect union" today means that we need structural, constitutional reform at all levels of government in America, to invigorate citizen participation by making representation real for people who don't feel included today. There is a way to maintain majority rule while assuring the protection and inclusion of the minority, so that all citizens know they have a voice in government. It is a way to narrow further the gap between the reign of God and the rule of human governments, a gap the prophet Samuel identified so long ago .