Why does the American form of government work?

The Federalist Essays No. 10

In essay number 10, James Madison say why he believes republics are more robust forms of government than democracies. Madison claims that in true democracies where the people govern themselves, "the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that 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." Madison's argument is that in democracies, if a certain group holds a majority, then the interests of any minority groups will be ignored, creating conflict and civil unrest. While democracies seem like they are more free, the presence of an "overbearing majority" can defeat the intended liberty of this type of government. I rather disagree with Madison's idea about democracy's weakness: I think it's capacity to represent the majority's interest is a strength. However, this doesn't mean it has weaknesses. Especially in multiple party democracies, if election/votes are won simply by having more votes than all the other parties, then a group does not need a large percentage of the votes, it just needs one more than second place. This makes misrepresentation of the majority quite easy, which is the opposite of Madison's concern.

Madison's government of choice is a republic. His two noted strengths of republics are: "first, the delegation of the government, in the latter [a republic], 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 [a republic] may be extended." Madison believes republics are stronger because, rather than the common people voting directly for policies (such that the majority can enact oppression), more noble and rational representatives would be elected to act on the people's behalf, except more educatedly. Madison claims this would eliminate the risk of people making poor choices or creating unjust laws. His second claim is that, because there would be fewer representatives than the total population they are representing, it would be logistically easier to govern large areas and populations than if everyone had to vote (as in a democracy). Perhaps it is because we are in different times, but I disagree with Madison's idea that the people are too irrational to vote for themselves. The US's adoption of a republic has misrepresented the majority, especially in presidential elections where candidates don't even need to win the popular vote to get into office. This means that elects may not be who most people chose, and thus may not represent most Americans. 


The Federalist Essays No. 51
Madison espouses the idea of checks and balances within the larger federal government. Madison writes: "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." Madison describes how having each branch act independently ought to make the branches more equal in power. Equality in power means no single branch can dominate the national government and enact policies that disproportionately favor its interests. Thus, the separation of branches that are able to check one another prevents any one branch from reigning tyrannically over the others, and the whole country.

Madison also writes, "In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments." Madison also acknowledges that his preferred type of government, a republic, has the potential to take away all the power from the people. However, his solution to this is to divide the power of the government to ensure that there is no one, absolute government that could quickly stray from the people's interests.