Federalist Paper #10



Federalist Paper #10

Of all the Federalist Papers written by John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, perhaps the most famous and the one most quoted is Federalist No. 10, by Madison. Many people had argued against the new Constitution claiming that the US would be too large to govern as a democracy (republic) and had too many groups, or "factions," as political parties were then called. While Madison acknowledged that there were many differing factions, he also indicated that a democratic form of government, using the ideal of majority rule, would tame the factions and cause them to work together as much as possible. He claimed that the republican form of government created by the new Constitution would allow all the factions the room and venues to express themselves and to influence the workings of government by getting their members elected and/or appointed to offices. Minority groups would be protected because the factions would have to negotiate their differences. In this way, the republic would create a system of government in which the majority would rule but the ideas of the minority would have to be taken into consideration. Numerous factions would also mean that no one group would be able to take complete control of the government and this would give rise to what Madison called "politics," namely, the art of governing.

The Federalist Papers are a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. These essays were published in the New York newspapers, and their purpose was to persuade New Yorkers to ratify the Constitution. New York at the time was mostly anti-federalist.

One of the most famous essay is the Federalist No. 10 written by Madison. It constructs the problem of "factions" and how a large republic framed by the Constitution, can better give a cure for these.

Madison, with "factions" means a group of people who are united by the same beliefs, interests, and passions. To pursue these common goals they disregard the rights of other citizens, especially minorities. He affirms that factions, particularly when assembled together in a majority, have been a problem to popular government. By popular government he indicates those supported by the people.

Madison illustrates two methods for dealing with the violence of faction: to remove its causes, or to control its effects. There are two ways again of removing its causes, one is by taking away liberty, the other is by giving the same interests to every citizens. The first would work because "liberty is to faction what air is to fire" but it is impossible to perform because liberty is essential to political life and is what Americans have fought for during the revolutionary war. The second option is impracticable because common people's opinions are always influenced by their emotions and their self-interest. They don't always think clearly, they don't approach situations in the same way. The diverseness of people's ability which make them succeed more or less and in which inequality of property derive is a right that the government should protect.

Madison states "The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man" so the cure is to control factions' effects. He makes an argument on how this is not possible in a pure democracy but possible in a republic. With pure democracy he means a system in which every citizen vote directly for laws. And with republic he intends a society in which citizen’s vote for elected representatives who then vote for laws. He indicates that the voice of the people pronounced by a body of representatives is more conformable to the interest of the community because again, common people's decisions are affected by their self-interest.

Then he makes an argument in favor of a large republic against a small republic for the choice of "fit characters" to represent the public's voice. In a large republic where the number of voters and candidates is greater, the probability to elect competent representatives is broader. The voters have a wider option. In a small republic it would also be easier for the candidates to fool the voters, while in a large one, harder.

The last argument Madison makes in favor of a large republic is, in a small republic there will be a lower variety of interests and parties, so more frequently a majority will be found. The number of participants of that majority will be lower, and considering they live in a more limited territory, it would be easier for them to agree and work together for the accomplishment of their ideas. While in a large republic the variety of interests will be greater so to make it harder to find a majority. Even if there is a majority it would be harder for them to work together because of the large number of people and the fact they are spread out in a wider territory.

Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

| |

The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitutionestablished direct election of United States Senators by popular vote. The amendment supersedes Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which senators were elected by state legislatures. It also alters the procedure for filling vacancies in the Senate, allowing for state legislatures to permit their governors to make temporary appointments until a special election can be held. Under the original provisions of the Constitution, senators were elected by state legislatures; this was intended to prevent the federal government from indirectly absconding with the powers and funds of the states. However, over time various issues with these provisions, such as the risk of corruption and the potential for electoral deadlocks or a lack of representation should a seat become vacant, led to a campaign for reform.

Reformers tabled constitutional amendments in 1828, 1829, and 1855, with the issues finally reaching a head during the 1890s and 1900s. Progressives, such as William Jennings Bryan, called for reform to the way senators were chosen. Elihu Root and George Frisbie Hoar were prominent figures in the campaign to maintain the state legislative selection of senators. By 1910, 31 state legislatures had passed motions calling for reform. By 1912, 239 political parties at both the state and national level had pledged some form of direct election, and 33 states had introduced the use of direct primaries. With a campaign for a state-led constitutional amendment gaining strength, and a fear that this could result in a"runaway convention", the proposal to mandate direct elections for the Senate was finally introduced in the Congress. It was passed by the Congress and, on May 13, 1912, was submitted to the states for ratification. By April 8, 1913, three-fourths of the states had ratified the proposed amendment, making it the Seventeenth Amendment. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan formally declared the amendment's adoption on May 31, 1913.

Critics of the Seventeenth Amendment claim that by altering the way senators are elected, the states lost any representation they had in the federal government and that, in addition to violating the unamendable state suffrage clause of Article V, this led to the gradual "slide into ignominy" of state legislatures, as well as an overextension of federal power and the rise of special interest groups to fill the power vacuum previously occupied by state legislatures.[1] In addition, concerns have been raised about the power of governors to appoint temporary replacements to fill vacant senate seats, both in terms of how this provision should be interpreted and whether it should be permitted at all. Accordingly, noted public figures have expressed a desire to reform or even repeal the Seventeenth Amendment.

Primary Votes Now

[pic]

Democratic National Convention, Los Angeles, California, July, 1960

Examine these convention pictures that range from 1904 to 1960. The face of political conventions doesn't seem to have changed much in five decades. Even at today's conventions, you'd see crowds of delegates, banners, and signs. It may look the same, but over the last 150 years the American primary process has been dramatically transformed.

[pic]

General view, opening prayer of the Republican National Convention. c1904

[pic]

Republican National Convention, 1920.

Because the Constitution gives no guidance for nominating presidential candidates, Americans continue to tinker with the primary process. Reforms led to party rules for choosing candidates and delegates. The Democratic party has established national rules for how candidates are selected. The Republican party allows each state to set its own guidelines for candidate selection. Other parties, such as the Reform party, have a less structured candidate selection process.

The advent of early primaries in New Hampshire, early caucuses in Iowa, and the Super-Tuesday block of state primaries is relatively new to the election scene. As primaries were universally adopted as the method for selecting delegates, they became a more consequential part of the election process. Early primaries have taken on added importance as setting precedence and influencing the elections that follow in other states. Today, state legislatures capitalize on the importance of primaries and jockey for influence by scheduling their states' primaries and caucuses as early as possible, forcing presidential candidates to cater to their states.

Unlike the heated back-room nominations of the past, there are few surprises at today's national party conventions. Today, in 48 states, individuals participate in primaries or caucuses to elect delegates who support their presidential candidate of choice. At national party conventions, the presidential contender with the most state delegate votes wins the party nomination. Our far-reaching American news media ensures that state delegate vote counts (and the apparent nominees) are well known before national conventions begin. As a result, modern national conventions don't select candidates. Instead, they launch nominees and election themes that carry through the race to the White House.

[pic]

'I want to build a bridge!' said one. October 21, 1996. From Oliphant's Anthem: Pat Oliphant at the Library of Congress Exhibit

President Clinton's speech at the Democratic National Committee convention on August 29, 1996 was entitled "Join Me to Build that Bridge to the Future," a theme that was played constantly for the next few months.

The perceived need for reform of the primary process continues today. Many feel that the influence of early primaries disturbs the balance of power exerted by the states upon the nomination of candidates, and thus the selection of the President. Proponents of campaign finance reform feel that the large sums of money required to run a political race deter many from seeking office. Indeed, the increased importance of primary elections and the increased media coverage of the race for the Presidency have added to the challenges facing a candidate. Prospective presidential candidates generally pay registration fees, collect a set number of voter signatures, and affiliate with a political party to qualify for state ballots or caucuses. That deceptively simple process is followed by the more onerous job of amassing a war-chest of campaign funds, then winning the hearts of voters in grueling and costly state races and in the general election.

Americans will continue to grapple with the primary and the electoral system. The beauty of our democracy is that citizens have the power to change the election process in the years to come.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download