Democracy and majority rule appear to give legitimacy to acts that might otherwise be defined as tyranny. Most of us agree that having our decisions made for us, on what we are eating for dinner or what Americas favorite sport is, made through the democratic process is tyranny. That being said, why isn’t it also tyranny for the majority to decide whether or not we recycle or whether or not we purchase health insurance?
The founders of our country intended for us to have a republican form of limited government where political decision-making is kept to the minimum.
In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wrote, “Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”
These same founders intended for Americans to have a republican form of limited government where political decision-making is kept to the minimum.
…show more content…
One such rule is election of the president is not decided by a majority vote but instead by the Electoral College. Nine states have more than 50 percent of the U.S. population. If a simple majority were the rule, conceivably these nine states could determine the presidency. Fortunately, they can’t because they have only 225 Electoral College votes when 270 of the 538 total are needed. Were it not for the Electoral College, presidential candidates could safely ignore less populous
James Madison’s Federalist 10 was written amid criticisms that a republican form of government had never been successful on a large scale. Madison’s argument was that a well-constructed union could control factions. He argued that in order to control factions from their causes, we would need to either give up liberty or free thought. Since we cannot infringe upon these two natural rights, we must move on to controlling the effects. A republic, Madison argues, would be able to do this because the people choose the representatives, and they choose representatives who they feel best represent their opinions.
Perhaps the most famous Federalist paper, Federalist 10, starts off by saying that one of the biggest arguments that favors the Constitution is that it creates a government suited to minimize the harm caused by factions. Faction, in this case, is defined as a group of people whether a minority or majority based on class, race, and profession that all share a common interest. It was inevitable that factions would occur and perhaps the defining characteristic was the unequal distribution of property. This would ultimately lead the poor without property to become the majority in a “tyranny of the masses.” Madison believed that there were two solutions in preventing majority factions, 1) Remover the causes, and 2) Control the effects.
The founding father’s idea when they created the Constitution was to prevent a centralized government. As expressed by James Madison in Federalist No. 51, they believe that the power surrendered by people would be divided between the federal and state governments, creating balance of power that would enable both governments to control each other. Over time, the balance of power between the federal and state governments has shifted in favor of the federal government and this has taken place with the help of the Constitution and by enactments of Congress. The role that Chief Justice John Marshall played in defining the power of the federal and state governments during the early 19th century is important to mention because he shaped the nation.
James Madison, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, wrote his essay “Federalist No. 10” with the inspiration of the ratification of The Constitution. He starts off by mentioning that one of the most important capabilities of a well-constructed Union is breaking and controlling the violence of faction. Madison adequately defined factions, their causes, and ways to eliminate factions. He also clearly mentioned the role of The Constitution in regulating the effects of factions.
I believe that James Madison is right. We have seen in history that virtuous citizens are not enough to make the government run efficiently. For example, in 1781 to 1789 during the Revolutionary War, Americans had loyalties to their respective states, not to America. Many did not even think of themselves as Americans. This lack of
“The accumulation of all powers..in the same hands, whether of one or many (is) the very definition of tyranny.” (James Madison, Federalist Paper #47, 1788) ( Background Essay) This quote explains the reasoning for one of the framers, (B) Separation of Powers. The framers of the constitution were created to prevent tyranny and create a stronger government that would hold the nation together. Tyranny ultimately means harsh, absolute power in the hands of one individual-- like a king or dictator. The constitution guarded against tyranny in 4 ways: (A)Federalism, (B)Separation of Powers, (C)Checks & Balances, and (D)Small State-Large State.
James Madison published Federalist 51 on February 8, 1788. The Federalist 51 explains that the purpose of the essay is to help readers understand the structure of the proposed government that makes liberty possible. Madison believes that each branch should be independent,and not depend on others. If they actually followed what Madison proposed that meant that the citizens would select the president, the legislators and the judges. The only position that would suffer the most is the judge 's position, because not many citizens are aware of what the qualifications for judges are.
Great Britain provided many basic constitutional principles to the colonies. These ideas founded our government and shaped our country. Some principles we adopted from England helped develop our representative government, one being republicanism. In all colonies except for Georgia, republicanism was a common practice.
10 in an attempt to ratify the Constitution, the new form of government for the United States. In the Federalist Paper No. 10, Madison analyzed the way to deal with facts, made a comparison between a pure democracy and a republic, and made another comparison on whether a small government or a large government would be the best for America. He informed the people that there is not a way to completely get rid of factions, but there are ways to deal with them. One great way to deal with factions is by having a government that knows how to control and deal with their effects. Madison believes that a republic can do that job better than a democracy, because a democracy is a small society of people who can not admit there is a cure to factions.
James Madison wrote Federalist 51 over 200 years ago, yet its words still impact today’s government in 2016. When writing Federalist 51, Madison had two main objectives in mind; he wanted a government with a separation of powers, and he also wanted minorities to be protected. Both of his objectives have been accomplished and continue to be present in today’s American government with the latter objective being more present in today’s government even more so than in the past. To begin with, power is separated in today’s government, preventing a single person or group from having absolute power since, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” according to John Dalberg-Acton. The American government is composed of three branches which power is separated amongst.
In the Federalist Papers 10, Madison argues that the most knowledgeable and virtuous citizens believe that the government is too easily changed and too directly influenced by the people. He wants the government to have more power over the people and for it to be ruled by the minority party, such as himself. This is suspect to suspicion, as many of the people involved in the writing of the Constitution were part of that minority that they believed should possess more power than the common people. Both Howard Zinn and Charles Beard think that one of the main purposes of the Constitution was simply to benefit the wealthy, aristocratic upper class both financially and
APUSH DBQ #1 Vivian Yang As the colonies of America further differs with their mother country and began to develop into a successful democratic nation, numerous political had changes occurred. With this divergent, a separation of power began to emerge in the form of two political parties. These were the Jeffersonian Republicans and the Federalists. The parties came to be characterized by certain beliefs, and the usages of those principles would differ during the Jefferson and Madison presidencies.
In the first paragraph of the Federalist Paper 10, Madison explains what he is trying to do with the constitution. His main concerns were to establish a government that was capable of controlling violence and damage caused by factions. He believes that as long as men have different opinions, different amounts of property and wealth, then there will always be factions. When Madison says faction, he means a group of people that have some strong common passion or interest.
In Federalist 51, he focuses on how the Constitution divides the power of the government into three branches and so no one branch would have too much power. This was done by using the checks and balances system. Madison believes that each branch should be, for the most part, independent, but, to avoid any branches from abusing its power, no branch should have too much power in choosing the members of another. He says that to follow this rule strictly, the people of the United States would choose all members of all branches, but difficulties would arise as the people may not be aware of the best qualifications for each position. So, the branches check one another and the people elect the members other than in the judicial branch, whose members are chosen by the executive branch.
The first voting rule is called unanimity. It means that the outcome is agreed by all voters. In this method, each individual's preference matters, since one single disagreement can change the outcome. In this case, every individual prefers one option to another, therefore, it must result in a societal preference. This reaches Pareto improvement, making at least one person better off without making at least preference criterion worse off.