Why Does The American Form of Government Work?

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose.

This excerpt from The Ferderalist No. 10  talks about how the differences between a republic and a democracy.  It shows how the American form of government is successful in its way about doing things.  Our government does this by represent the people and their views "by passing [their ideas] through the medium of a chosen body of citizens."  This assembly that is chosen by the people is representative of the the peoples' views because, hopefully, they were elected to their position for their "patriotism and love of justice,' as the article states.  This way of representation and making decision and laws, is much more valuable to the people then having one faction rule over the nation as a whole.  It also allows for multiple viewpoints to be seen by the representatives and then the decision "will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose."  This way of government is seen in our current government and it works because the people elect representatives that they want and see their viewpoints in, so that the voice and opinion of many can be heard, not just of a few.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens?  The parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail.

In this excerpt, Madison talks about the judicial system of our government, saying "no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause" because of peoples' natural bias could compromise their integrity.  He goes on to say that it is the same, maybe more important, concerning groups of people, their rights, and who is to represent them.  This is because when there are only a couple powerful factions, most people are bound to fall into those few, so it is possible that the judge of that case is either specifically for or against their case or cause.  So, as Madison states, "the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail."  This is the way that the judicial branch happens and the government just has to trust that the judge can be unbiased towards the parties involved.  Our government also incorporates a jury in order to incorporate more opinions and people of different backgrounds and from different parties or factions,  in order to get a fair ruling.

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. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another.

This excerpt from The Ferderalist No. 51 talks about how balance of power is a outcome of complete separation of dominant will and that the people, "the supreme fountain of authority," should be the group to appoint members to each branch of the government.  This is the only way that multiple members do not have the same will and desire because that leads to the monopoly of that branch and no outside opinions other than that one group and their opinion.  This is "essential to the preservation of liberty," for the nation as a whole. The idea of a balance of power is directly related to the goal that no one branch can be dominant over the other or over the nation's will and control the decisions made for the nation, because these decisions, made by one particular group, are probably not in consensus with the multiple and varied ideas of the people.  A separation of powers allows for checks and balances that keep order  among the government and branches that represent many opinions of such a large and still growing nation, with a people that has such a varied viewpoint.

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?

People are naturally ambitious and always seek to achieve their goals, whatever they may be.  Madison states that because everyone is this way, the people should counteract each other.  That the motives of the people in the different branches of power are to be balanced by the somewhat equal ambitions of the differently opinionated people in each branch.  This way "the interest of the man [can] be connected with the constitutional rights of the place," because the matching up of ambition levels it out and finds a happy medium that everyone can be happy with, which should also be lined up with the goals of the country.  The reflection of human nature that Madison talks about is this matching up that I stated, because it is human nature that people debate and disagree with one another.  The good laws that the people are happy with come from this debate between the opposing opinions because these opinion reflect the greater opinions of the people as a whole.