Before the United States was the constitutional democracy, or republic it is today, it was an odd combination of pure democracy with several branches of government blended together. In order to create a strong government, two rivaling parties emerged: The Federalists and Antifederalists. Those who believed in Federalism believed in ratifying the Constitution while those who believed in Anti-Federalism opposed the ratification of the Constitution. James Madison ever so eloquently wrote Federalist 10, now accredited the most influential essay in The Federalist series. In Federalist 10 lie several incredibly wise quotations that truly shape the meaning of Federalism and of how the United States was framed. To begin with, Madison pointed out
…show more content…
In Federalist 10, he wrote, “From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.” What this means in modern context is that a pure, or direct democracy, in Madison’s point of view is a danger to minority and individuals. In a direct democracy, if the political party is the majority, it does not matter what the minority thinks, the majority will continue to chase their interests, even if it hurts the nation or disregards the welfare of others. In general, the majority rule does not always mean the correct outcome. This is seen in recent years with the election of President Bush, when he won most electoral votes against Al Gore (who won the majority of citizens’ votes). Yet again, I agree with Madison’s perception of a successful and effective government. In our modern society, where the nation has grown double if not more from the age of Madison, a direct democracy would dexterously cause our nation to fall as it had with the Greek and Roman empires. When you have a large nation and many media outlets, it is imperative to have balanced views (which is where the judicial branch would come in) and proper representation before making decision on controversial topics (such as abortion, taxation, …show more content…
Madison began The Federalist 10 by indicating how democracies in large empires, explicitly the Greek and Roman Empires, have failed and fell disastrously. He also mentions how factions are a danger to government, and describes the benefits of interest groups. He understood that whether a majority or minority, if there is a group of people with a certain issue they would fight for or against, they will do so even if it neglects the nation’s welfare. Madison also understood that men of greater intelligence would acquire greater goods/properties, so he knew that as a government, the nation should encourage prosperity (now known as the American Dream). Madison thought that destroying a faction would be impractical and in some cases, impossible. So to deal with the impact factions have, Madison suggested a Constitution in order to limit the amount of power any single faction can have. Along with a Constitution, he also introduced a system of checks and balances in regards to factions and the power they have. Madison also suggested representation in order to prevent any groups trying to persuade the majority and to lessen confusion in a large republic. In general, Madison also proposed that in a smaller republic, the members of majority will be part of the same party which isn’t compelling, and in a large republic, there are more interest groups and factions. Even if
In Federalist 10, he wrote, “From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.” What this means in modern context is that a pure, or direct democracy, in Madison’s point of view is a danger to minority and individuals. In a direct democracy, if the political party is the majority, it does not matter what the minority thinks, the majority will continue to chase their interests, even if it hurts the nation or disregards the welfare of others. In general, the majority rule does not always mean the correct outcome. This is seen in recent years with the election of President Bush, when he won most electoral votes against Al Gore (who won the majority of citizens’ votes). Yet again, I agree with Madison’s perception of a successful and effective government. In our modern society, where the nation has grown double if not more from the age of Madison, a direct democracy would dexterously cause our nation to fall as it had with the Greek and Roman empires. When you have a large nation and many media outlets, it is imperative to have balanced views (which is where the judicial branch would come in) and proper representation before making decision on controversial topics (such as abortion, taxation, …show more content…
Madison began The Federalist 10 by indicating how democracies in large empires, explicitly the Greek and Roman Empires, have failed and fell disastrously. He also mentions how factions are a danger to government, and describes the benefits of interest groups. He understood that whether a majority or minority, if there is a group of people with a certain issue they would fight for or against, they will do so even if it neglects the nation’s welfare. Madison also understood that men of greater intelligence would acquire greater goods/properties, so he knew that as a government, the nation should encourage prosperity (now known as the American Dream). Madison thought that destroying a faction would be impractical and in some cases, impossible. So to deal with the impact factions have, Madison suggested a Constitution in order to limit the amount of power any single faction can have. Along with a Constitution, he also introduced a system of checks and balances in regards to factions and the power they have. Madison also suggested representation in order to prevent any groups trying to persuade the majority and to lessen confusion in a large republic. In general, Madison also proposed that in a smaller republic, the members of majority will be part of the same party which isn’t compelling, and in a large republic, there are more interest groups and factions. Even if