Reader: Let's Focus on the Election Process

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host


Five times in the Federalist Papers author James Madison felt it necessary the define the differences between a Democracy and a Republic.  Those who believed the Constitution did not create a centralized enough federal government were trying to convince the people that there was no difference between a republic or a democracy, and were pushing, as a result, for a more purely democratic system which they believed could be better utilized as a means to reach their oligarch ends.

From an article I wrote in May of 2017:  In five of his Federalist Papers essays, James Madison defines a republic, and compares its features to that of a democracy.   Nationalists of the day were challenging the viability of a republic over a democracy, while other nationalists who sought a stronger central government were trying to convince the public that a difference between a republic, and a democracy, does not exist. 

Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10, “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
“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.” 

Madison wrote in Federalist No. 14, “The error which limits republican government to a narrow district has been unfolded and refuted in preceding papers. I remark here only that it seems to owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding of a republic with a democracy, applying to the former reasonings drawn from the nature of the latter. The true distinction between these forms was also adverted to on a former occasion. It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot.  A republic may be extended over a large region.” 

Madison wrote in Federalist No. 39, “If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior.  It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.  It is sufficient for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified; otherwise every government in the United States, as well as every other popular government that has been or can be well organized or well executed, would be degraded from the republican character.” 

Madison wrote in Federalist No. 48, “In a government where numerous and extensive prerogatives are placed in the hands of an hereditary monarch, the executive department is very justly regarded as the source of danger, and watched with all the jealousy which a zeal for liberty ought to inspire.  In a democracy, where a multitude of people exercise in person the legislative functions, and are continually exposed, by their incapacity for regular deliberation and concerted measures, to the ambitious intrigues of their executive magistrates, tyranny may well be apprehended, on some favorable emergency, to start up in the same quarter.  But in a representative republic, where the executive magistracy is carefully limited; both in the extent and the duration of its power; and where the legislative power is exercised by an assembly, which is inspired, by a supposed influence over the people, with an intrepid confidence in its own strength; which is sufficiently numerous to feel all the passions which actuate a multitude, yet not so numerous as to be incapable of pursuing the objects of its passions, by means which reason prescribes; it is against the enterprising ambition of this department that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions.” 

Madison wrote in Federalist No. 51, “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.”

John Adams said, "...democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

In Federalist 10, regarding the dangers of democracy, James Madison wrote, "Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

So why place "We the People" at the start of the Constitution's Preamble, and "consent of the governed" in the text of the Declaration of Independence if a democracy is not what the Founding Fathers desired for us?

Our definitions have changed over time, and we are convinced that only in a democratic system, and only through the voting process, can the voice of the "will of the people" be heard.

A reader recently wrote me that he did not wish for the churches to be involved in politics, and instead for pastors to focus on influencing the election process by instructing his flock to vote their values.

The problem with democracies goes deeper than the realization that it can be used by 51% of the people to vote away the rights of the other 49%.

After the ratification of the U.S. Constitution the only "democratically" elected officials by the people in the federal government were the members of the House of Representatives. All other positions were placed into the federal government by "indirect" election.

Senators were placed into their 6 year term position by being appointed by the State Legislatures. A key feature of a bicameral congress is that the two houses of the legislative body are different from each other. In Rome the assembly represented the people, while the Senate represented the aristocracy (wealthy and powerful). In Britain, the House of Commons belongs to the people, and the House of Lords is the voice of the nobility. In America, in order to have a functioning republic, we needed the Houses of Congress to be different from each other, but at the same time we had no interest in having an aristocracy or body of nobles in this country. Therefore, the Senate needed to be the voice of an American constituency other than the citizenry, and more specifically, the voice of those who gave the federal government its authorities and powers in the first place.

In the United States, the U.S. Senate was populated by appointees by the State legislatures so as to be the voice of the States.

The Presidential Election was different, too. The popular vote in each State did not influence the vote of the Electors of the Electoral College until it was demanded to be that way by Andrew Jackson. As a proponent of pure democracy, and the father of the Democratic Party, Andrew Jackson was the first to go after an alteration of the Electoral College in such a way, and be successful. Prior to those changes, the electors were chosen by the State legislatures, and voted based on the influences of campaigning citizens. The populace were the ones who campaigned for their favorite presidential choice, and did so for the sole purpose of attempting to sway their elector to vote the way they wanted. In this way, citizens were required to be informed and actively influential if they were to get the candidate they desired. To get the President they wanted, it took more effort than merely voting.

Not only did these methods put into place a natural check against unbridled democracy, but it also encouraged the citizens to be more involved in politics. In a democracy, a person only needs to get involved once per year on election day. In a Republic, campaigning, influencing, and rallying were all important factors in ensuring the voice of the governed reached those who were in positions to make decisions.

Unfortunately, today we have lost that understanding. We believe we are a democracy, we only get involved when it is time to vote, and even leading media voices are saying silly things like "The Electoral College is a National Security Risk."

While the Electoral College does not exist in its original form, it still remains as one of our last guards against the excesses of democracy, and the overpowering demands of the population centers for a more centralized government.

In the long run, losing the Electoral College is a national security risk, just as the passing of the 17th Amendment was, and just as us being convinced we are a democracy is.

Even Karl Marx knew that democracy was bad for liberty, and good for establishing a tyranny. He once said, "Democracy is the road to socialism." Or, as I like to say, "communism by democratically elected suicide."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary