The solution to 21st century Iraqi political turmoil might lie in 18th-century American political genius. Iraq is facing a political crisis. After recent elections, a new government was formed with precious little representation for the Sunni minority – a group that once enjoyed preferential treatment under the regime of the Sunni tyrant Saddam Hussein. Violence against political leaders is rising, and there is talk of an oncoming civil war. No one seems to have a solution for the problem that threatens to tear Iraq apart.

Yet the puzzle of how to protect popular sovereignty where majority rule clashes with minority rights is hardly new. Another group of political leaders went through a similar struggle in the late 18th century; the result was the United States Constitution. Many compromises had to be reached in order to bring the country together; one seems particularly appropriate to the current situation in Iraq – the aptly named “Great Compromise,” which led to the creation of a bicameral Congress.

Delegates from every state but Rhode Island met in 1787 to draft a new Constitution to replace the ineffective Articles of Confederation. Shays’ Rebellion, an uprising of veterans who had lost their property during the Revolutionary War, showed that a strong central government was necessary to safeguard popular welfare; the rebellion was put down not by government troops but by mercenaries hired by merchants who saw their businesses threatened. At the Constitutional Convention, delegates argued over how strong the federal government should be, and how to guarantee states’ rights.

One struggle centered on representation in Congress: large states, afraid of being dominated by small states, wanted representation keyed to population and wanted majority rule protected. Small states, afraid of being dominated by large states, wanted equal representation for each state and wanted minority rights protected. Eventually, the convention settled on a two-house Congress: one house to protect majority rule and the other to protect minority rights. Each house would have the power to keep the other in check.

The same system might work well in Iraq. One house would be organized as the Iraqi parliament is today, with a member of parliament for every constituency and all constituencies of roughly equal population. In the other, each of the three dominant religious groups would have an equal voice. Each house would act as a check on the other. Shiites would have their rights as a majority preserved; Sunnis and Kurds would have their rights as minorities protected. Civil war would be averted. And American troops could move on to Iran.

Mr. Gelernter is a high school student in Woodbridge, Conn.