Federalist Essay No. 10 and No. 51: Why the American Form of Government Works

Federalist Essay No. 10: Democracy vs. Republic

"It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency."

Madison first discusses the ways to limit the damage factions cause by removing the roots. The first cause of factions is liberty, yet destroying liberty would be impossible because it is such an essential political ideal to the people. One of the reasons the American form of government is so successful in the first place is because it is based off of the idea of natural rights and liberties that all men are entitled to have. Taking liberty away would not only cause an uproar, but would also condemn the American government to a form of government more similar to the type of monarchy they had escaped in the first place.

“The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended."

After coming to the conclusion that the causes of the faction can not be removed, Madison goes on to explain how its effects can be controlled. Since the decisions of most people are clouded by their personal needs and desires, Madison states that a republic is the most effective and just form of government. In a republic, the common people will be able to vote for representatives to make decisions for them, which allows them to have representation in the government. The upside to this system is that not only will it not take as much time to come to a consensus, as it would if everyone was able to have their individual vote, but it will help to keep personal interest out of government decisions, for the representatives will be able to take into consideration many different opinions and come to a consensus on what is truly best for the nation. Although I think a system of representatives could be an effective one, I questioned the fact of representatives really making decisions for the greater good of the people. If common people's decisions could be clouded by their personal desires, couldn't representatives abuse their power for their own interests as well? Madison may have considered this too, for he continues on to clarify his favor of a large republic as opposed to a small one. By having a larger representative body, having a few selfish representatives wouldn't make as much of a difference as opposed to if they were among only a few other people in a smaller representative body. Along with this, a majority will be more common in a smaller representative body, for there will be less variety in positions and interests as there would be in a larger group. A larger body forces the representatives to consider varying viewpoints and ideas, whereas it is much easier to jump on the bandwagon with an idea that may not be the best option when you are a part of a much smaller group.

To recap, a large republic makes the American form of government work so effectively because it lessens the likelihood of the representatives abusing their power and forces representatives to consider a wide range of ideas before coming to a consensus on what will benefit the people the most.

Federalist Essay No. 51: Separation of Powers

"In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others."

"In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified."

In these passages, Madison advocates the separation of powers in the branches of our government. He states his belief in each branch having its own separate goals and ways of making decisions. This prevents two branches from coming together to become more powerful than the third, and instead keeps the balance of power since each separate branch has it own duties and goals to achieve. Madison also believes in the distinct separation of each branch so that one branch will not be able to appoint representatives in another branch. If such a thing were to happen, then there would be two branches with similar members with similar beliefs, thereby disrupting the balance of power between the three branches. By having these branches be as separated and self-sufficient as possible, the rights and liberties of the governed are secure. If one branch starts to over-impose its power, the other branches will be prepared to check it and put it back in its place, thus protecting and ensuring the liberties of the people.