Federalist 52


In Federalist 52, James Madison addresses the logistics and reasoning behind the Constitution's proposal for a lower house of the legislative branch, the House of Representatives. Madison stresses the importance of a direct connection between the people and those in power in a republican government such as the United States. He insists that by allowing the voters to directly elect representatives every two years, the elected will be held accountable for their actions. He compares this proposed system to other nation's examples of legislative bodies, and argues that the United States' system will provide more liberty than other countries.

Federalist 52


The House of Representatives

New York Packet
Friday, February 8, 1788
James Madison

To the People of the State of New York:

FROM the more general inquiries pursued in the four last papers, I pass on to a more particular examination of the several parts of the government. I shall begin with the House of Representatives. Unlike the past four papers which discussed more general issues, we will now look at the specific parts of the government starting with the House of Representatives.
The first view to be taken of this part of the government relates to the qualifications of the electorselector (noun) a person who has the right to vote in an election and the electedelected (noun) a person who is voted in to office. Those of the former are to be the same with those of the electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. The definition of the right of suffragesuffrage (noun) the right to vote is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican governmentrepublican government (noun) a government in which the political authority comes from the people. It was incumbentincumbent (adjective) necessary as a responsibility on the convention, therefore, to define and establish this right in the Constitution. To have left it open for the occasional regulation of the Congress, would have been improper for the reason just mentioned. To have submitted it to the legislative discretion of the States, would have been improper for the same reason; and for the additional reason that it would have rendered too dependent on the State governments that branch of the federal government which ought to be dependent on the people alone. To have reduced the different qualifications in the different States to one uniform rule, would probably have been as dissatisfactory to some of the States as it would have been difficult to the convention. The provision made by the convention appears, therefore, to be the best that lay within their option. It must be satisfactory to every State, because it is conformable to the standard already established, or which may be established, by the State itself. It will be safe to the United States, because, being fixed by the State constitutions, it is not alterable by the State governments, and it cannot be feared that the people of the States will alter this part of their constitutions in such a manner as to abridgeabridge (verb) shorten without losing the sense the rights secured to them by the federal Constitution. First up we will look at the qualifications for those who can vote and those who can serve as representatives. Anyone eligible to vote for the members of the lowest house in the state legislature will also be allowed to vote for members of the House of Representatives. Republican government depends upon the right to vote. Therefore, it was necessary to establish this right in the new Constitution. It would not have been a good idea to leave this right up to Congress, since power is to come from the people. For the same reason, it would not have been a good idea to leave this right to be decided by the State legislatures either. If we had changed the different qualifications used state-by-state for voting to one uniform rule, it would have been offensive to some of the states, but they can't object to the federal government using the rules that they have created. Because the right to vote is guaranteed by the Constitution, the people do not have to worry about their states changing this rule.
The qualifications of the elected, being less carefully and properly defined by the State constitutions, and being at the same time more susceptiblesusceptible (adjective) likely or liable to be influenced or harmed of uniformity, have been very properly considered and regulated by the convention. A representative of the United States must be of the age of twenty-five years; must have been seven years a citizen of the United States; must, at the time of his election, be an inhabitant of the State he is to represent; and, during the time of his service, must be in no office under the United States. Under these reasonable limitations, the door of this part of the federal government is open to merit of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith. Unlike the states which have been vague and loose when it comes to who can serve in office, the [Constitutional] convention has taken more time and effort to regulate who is allowed to hold power. A representative in the House must be 25 years old, have been a citizen of the United States for seven years, and live in the state he is representing at the time of his election. He cannot serve in any other office while serving as a representative. These limitations are reasonable, and still allow for a diverse membership of people of various ages, coming from different classes, and of different religious faiths.
The term for which the representatives are to be elected falls under a second view which may be taken of this branch. In order to decide on the propriety of this article, two questions must be considered: first, whether biennialbiennial (adjective) taking place every other year elections will, in this case, be safe; secondly, whether they be necessary or useful. We need to consider whether or not elections for the House every two years are safe and necessary.
First. As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured. But what particular degree of frequency may be absolutely necessary for the purpose, does not appear to be susceptible of any precise calculation, and must depend on a variety of circumstances with which it may be connected. Let us consult experience, the guide that ought always to be followed whenever it can be found. It is important that the government and the people share common interests. This can be achieved by making sure the House members are dependent on the approval of the people. The best method to hold the members of the House accountable to the people is frequent elections. Because there is no exact calculation to decide the perfect level of frequency, we must look at other examples for reference.
The scheme of representation, as a substitute for a meeting of the citizens in person, being at most but very imperfectly known to ancient politypolity (noun) an organized society, it is in more modern times only that we are to expect instructive examples. And even here, in order to avoid a research too vague and diffusivediffusive (adjective) spread out, it will be proper to confine ourselves to the few examples which are best known, and which bear the greatest analogy to our particular case. The first to which this character ought to be applied, is the House of Commons in Great Britain. The history of this branch of the English Constitution, anterioranterior (adjective) coming before in time to the date of Magna Charta, is too obscure to yield instruction. The very existence of it has been made a question among political antiquariesantiquarian (noun) person who studies old subject matter. The earliest records of subsequent date prove that parliaments were to sit only every year; not that they were to be elected every year. And even these annual sessions were left so much at the discretion of the monarch, that, under various pretexts, very long and dangerous intermissions were often contrived by royal ambition. To remedy this grievance, it was provided by a statute in the reign of Charles II. , that the intermissions should not be protractedprotract (verb) prolong or extend beyond a period of three years. On the accessionaccession (noun) the rise of a position of power or rank of William III., when a revolution took place in the government, the subject was still more seriously resumed, and it was declared to be among the fundamental rights of the people that parliaments ought to be held frequently. By another statute, which passed a few years later in the same reign, the term "frequently," which had alluded to the triennialtriennial (adjective) recurring every three years period settled in the time of Charles II. , is reduced to a precise meaning, it being expressly enacted that a new parliament shall be called within three years after the termination of the former. The last change, from three to seven years, is well known to have been introduced pretty early in the present century, under on alarm for the Hanoverian succession. From these facts it appears that the greatest frequency of elections which has been deemed necessary in that kingdom, for binding the representatives to their constituents, does not exceed a triennial return of them. And if we may argue from the degree of liberty retained even under septennialseptennial (adjective) recurring every seven years elections, and all the other vicious ingredients in the parliamentary constitution, we cannot doubt that a reduction of the period from seven to three years, with the other necessary reforms, would so far extend the influence of the people over their representatives as to satisfy us that biennial elections, under the federal system, cannot possibly be dangerous to the requisiterequisite (adjective) made necessary by particular regulations dependence of the House of Representatives on their constituents. It has been established for a long time in the world's history that representation is an effective substitute for every member of society meeting in person to make rules for society. Let's looks at some of the most well-known examples. In Great Britain, there is a House of Commons, but its practice before the Magna Carta is not worth considering as an example. Records show that the House was supposed to be called to sit in power every year—which said nothing about how often the members were supposed to be elected. So much power was left to the monarch that often the House of Commons was not called to meet for years, and this doesn't set a good example for us. William III called for frequent elections, and under Charles II, tenure of members of the House was extended to a three year cap. It was later clarified that elections for new members would occur every three years. Elections were later changed to every seven years. When comparing elections that occur every seven years versus three, it appears that the people have more influence on government when they can vote more often. Essentially, the point here is that we can’t use the British system as a model, because it was still really arbitrary and tells us nothing about how frequently elections should occur. However, we can conclude that in the United States, elections every two years cannot be considered dangerous to the dependence of representatives on their voters.
Elections in Ireland, till of late, were regulated entirely by the discretion of the crown, and were seldom repeated, except on the accession of a new prince, or some other contingent event. The parliament which commenced with George II. was continued throughout his whole reign, a period of about thirty-five years. The only dependence of the representatives on the people consisted in the right of the latter to supply occasional vacancies by the election of new members, and in the chance of some event which might produce a general new election. The ability also of the Irish parliament to maintain the rights of their constituents, so far as the disposition might exist, was extremely shackled by the control of the crown over the subjects of their deliberation. Of late these shackles, if I mistake not, have been broken; and octennialoctennial (adjective) recurring every eight years parliaments have besides been established. What effect may be produced by this partial reform, must be left to further experience. The example of Ireland, from this view of it, can throw but little light on the subject. As far as we can draw any conclusion from it, it must be that if the people of that country have been able under all these disadvantages to retain any liberty whatever, the advantage of biennial elections would secure to them every degree of liberty, which might depend on a due connection between their representatives and themselves. In Ireland, elections were always determined by the king or queen and often never occurred, allowing members of parliament to sit in power for decades. The only connection the people had to their representatives was when occasional vacancies would allow for a new member to step into power. "Recently" elections every eight years have been established, but this still limits the amount of influence the people have when they can only vote every eight years. Therefore, Ireland is also a bad example to model a government after. We can conclude that if Irish citizens manage to maintain liberty under this system, then elections every two years for the U.S. House would secure every degree of liberty for the people.
Let us bring our inquiries nearer home. The example of these States, when British colonies, claims particular attention, at the same time that it is so well known as to require little to be said on it. The principle of representation, in one branch of the legislature at least, was established in all of them. But the periods of election were different. They varied from one to seven years. Have we any reason to infer, from the spirit and conduct of the representatives of the people, prior to the Revolution, that biennial elections would have been dangerous to the public liberties? The spirit which everywhere displayed itself at the commencement of the struggle, and which vanquishedvanquish (verb) defeat thoroughly the obstacles to independence, is the best of proofs that a sufficient portion of liberty had been everywhere enjoyed to inspire both a sense of its worth and a zealzeal (noun) great enthusiasm and energy for its proper enlargement This remark holds good, as well with regard to the then colonies whose elections were least frequent, as to those whose elections were most frequent Virginia was the colony which stood first in resisting the parliamentary usurpations of Great Britain; it was the first also in espousingespouse (verb) to adopt or support, by public act, the resolution of independence. In Virginia, nevertheless, if I have not been misinformed, elections under the former government were septennial. This particular example is brought into view, not as a proof of any peculiar merit, for the priority in those instances was probably accidental; and still less of any advantage in septennial elections, for when compared with a greater frequency they are inadmissibleinadmissible (adjective) not accepted as valid; but merely as a proof, and I conceive it to be a very substantial proof, that the liberties of the people can be in no danger from biennial elections When the States were British colonies, they established representation for each colony, but some colonies held elections annually while others held them only every seven years. There is no reason to believe that if elections had been more frequent, then this would have threatened public liberties. We can see that Americans had enough liberty to fight for and achieve independence, even in the states where elections were less frequent. If one looks at Virginia, where elections were most infrequent, as they occurred every seven years, it is interesting to note that Virginia was the first to propose independence and played a key role in achieving that independence. One could conclude that with a higher frequency of elections would come an even higher sense of liberty. Even if one disagrees with that assertion, there is enough proof to declare that the liberties of people are not in danger from biennial elections.
The conclusion resulting from these examples will be not a little strengthened by recollecting three circumstances. The first is, that the federal legislature will possess a part only of that supreme legislative authority which is vested completely in the British Parliament; and which, with a few exceptions, was exercised by the colonial assemblies and the Irish legislature. It is a received and well-founded maximmaxim (noun) a general truth or rule, that where no other circumstances affect the case, the greater the power is, the shorter ought to be its duration; and, conversely, the smaller the power, the more safely may its duration be protracted. In the second place, it has, on another occasion, been shown that the federal legislature will not only be restrained by its dependence on its people, as other legislative bodies are, but that it will be, moreover, watched and controlled by the several collateral legislatures, which other legislative bodies are not. And in the third place, no comparison can be made between the means that will be possessed by the more permanent branches of the federal government for seducing, if they should be disposed to seduce, the House of Representatives from their duty to the people, and the means of influence over the popular branch possessed by the other branches of the government above cited. With less power, therefore, to abuse, the federal representatives can be less tempted on one side, and will be doubly watched on the other. The conclusion drawn from these examples is strengthened when three things are considered. First, the proposed American legislature will not have as much authority as the British legislature. It is generally agreed that the more power one has, the less time they should have that power. Because these representatives have limited power for a limited time, Americans are safe. Second, the proposed Congress will not only be accountable to the people, but also accountable to other legislatures and branches of government. Third, one should not be concerned about the ability of other branches of government to influence the House of Representatives because there will be a system of checks and balances. Because the House has less power, members will be less tempted to abuse power, and they will be accountable to other branches of government.
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License