The main function of a Constitution is to thrive Democratic system that underpins it. In this sense, a broadly shared criterion for assessing constitutional performance is the degree of a Constitution has served to promote some minimal concept of Democracy. This paper seeks to analyse how the so-called transformative constitutionalism has contributed to this effect by comparing three different constitutional settings: Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela. I disentangle different parts of the aforementioned constitutions to assess their performance in terms of measuring the change of a minimum core: “a set of institutions, procedures, and rights that are necessary to maintain a system of competitive democracy” (Dixon & Landau, 2016). Particularly I present a Schumpeterian approach that encompasses basic commitments to regular and free elections in which parties compete for access to democratic office, and citizens have the right to decide by casting vote on the basis of adult suffrage.