The Easy Federalist

The Federalist 52:

Written by James Madison

This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.

I am now going to look more closely at the different parts of the government. I will start with the House of Representatives.

We need to look at the qualifications of people who can vote and the qualifications of people who can be elected.

The right to vote is seen as very important in a republic government. It was the responsibility of the Constitution Convention to decide how this right would be given. It was not a good idea to leave it up to the Congress to decide or to the state governments. It would make the federal government too dependent on the states. It was also too hard to make one rule for everyone. The solution the Convention chose was the best. Each state can decide the qualifications for voting and it is not changeable by the state government. This way the people of the states have their rights protected by the federal Constitution.

The qualifications of the elected have been considered and regulated by the convention. To be a representative of the United States, you must be 25 years old and a citizen of the United States for 7 years. You must be living in the state you are representing and not hold any office with the United States during your service. These rules mean that anyone of any age, wealth, or religious beliefs can become a representative of the United States.

The period when representatives are chosen to serve falls under a different way of looking at this part of government. To decide if this is a good idea, two questions need to be answered: will it be safe to have elections every two years, and is it useful or necessary?

First, it is important for liberty that the government has the same interests as the people. To make sure of this, it is important to hold frequent elections. It is not easy to know how often elections should be held, as it depends on a lot of things. To figure this out, we should look to experience to guide us.

The idea of having representatives instead of meeting in person is not something that was known to ancient governments. We have to look to more modern times to find examples. To avoid being too broad, we can look at the House of Commons in Great Britain. The history of this branch of the English government before the Magna Carta is unclear. After that, it was set up so that Parliament would meet every year, but it was still up to the king to decide for how long. To stop this, a law was passed during Charles II’s rule saying Parliament had to meet every three years. When William III took over, people thought it was one of the people’s rights to have Parliament meet often. So, another law was passed saying it had to meet every three years. Later, during the early part of the century, another law was passed saying it had to meet every seven years. From this, we can see that the most frequent elections in Great Britain are every three years. With other reforms, biennial elections in the federal system would not be dangerous and would keep representatives dependent on their constituents.

Until recently, elections in Ireland were decided by the crown, and only changed with a new ruler or other special event. The parliament that began under George II stayed the same for around 35 years. The people of Ireland could make changes by electing new members to fill open positions and the crown had control over what the parliament talked about. Recently those restrictions have been removed and 8 year terms were established. It is unclear what effect this will have, but Ireland has managed to keep some freedom even with the restrictions, so biennial elections could help them keep even more.

Let us look closer to home. We all know that when these states were British colonies, they all had a form of representation in at least one branch of government. The time between elections varied from one to seven years. Is there any reason to say that having elections every two years would have been bad for the public’s freedom? The spirit that everyone had when the revolution began show that everyone already had a good amount of freedom. We can look at Virginia as an example. Even though they were the first to oppose the British Parliament and back the resolution of independence, they had elections every seven years. This proves that having elections every two years will not hurt the public’s liberties.

The conclusion that comes from these examples is even stronger when you consider three things. First, the federal legislature will only have some of the supreme authority the British Parliament has and what the colonial assemblies and the Irish legislature had, with a few exceptions. It is a popular belief that the more power a government has, the shorter it should last, and the less power it has, the longer it can last. Second, the federal legislature will be controlled by the people, like other legislative bodies, but it will also be watched and controlled by the other legislatures, which other legislative bodies are not. Lastly, the federal government will not have the same resources as other governments to tempt the house of representatives away from their duties to the people. This means that the federal representatives will have less power to misuse, so they will be less tempted, and will be watched even more closely.

The Federalist 53:

Written by James Madison

This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.

People often say, “where annual elections end, tyranny begins.” It is true that these sayings usually make sense, but people might use them for things that don’t fit. What is the reason for this saying? It is not because of how long the sun or the seasons last. We are lucky that we can have freedom for different lengths of time to fit the needs of different societies.

The way we elect magistrates can vary. This means it can be done daily, weekly, monthly, or annually. In the US, the most common is annual, but in Connecticut and Rhode Island it’s done every 6 months. South Carolina is the only state that does it every 2 years. Even though the time periods for elections vary from state to state, it doesn’t seem to affect the quality of government or how much freedom people have.

I am trying to find the reason behind this doctrine, but I can only find one that doesn’t apply to our situation. In America, it is understood that a constitution made by the people cannot be changed by the government. But in other places, it is believed that the government has the power to change the form of the government. Even in Britain, where liberty is discussed a lot, it is said that the parliament has the power to change the constitution. They have done this several times, like extending the term of their own election. This has worried people who support free government, since regular elections are important. But in America, since we have a constitution that can’t be changed, biennial elections should be enough to protect us from tyranny.

The second question is if biennial elections are necessary or helpful. It is easy to see why the answer to this question is yes.

No one can be a good legislator unless they have a good intention and good judgement, plus knowledge about the things they are legislating. Some knowledge can be learned, while other knowledge can only be gained by experience. Therefore, the length of service needs to be in proportion to how much knowledge is needed to do the job. Most states only require one year of service for their branch. Does two years of service for the federal branch have a bigger proportion of knowledge needed for the job than one year for the state branch? This question suggests that the answer should be yes.

In each state, all citizens should know the laws and general affairs of their state. However, in the United States, the laws vary in each state, and the affairs of the union span a much larger area. Representatives from each state should have knowledge of the affairs and laws of all the states, such as taxes, trade, and regulations of the militia. This requires extensive information on the part of the representatives in order to regulate foreign trade, taxes, and the trade between states. All of these things need to be taken into account in order to have uniform regulations.

It’s true that these difficulties will lessen over time. The toughest part will be setting up the government and making federal laws. Every year, it will get easier to make improvements on the first laws. Past government actions will help new members to know what to do. People from different states will get to know each other better, which will help them have similar laws and customs. Even with these changes, federal legislation will still be harder and more different than what happens in one state. That’s why people who do it have to work longer.

A federal representative needs to know about foreign affairs. They need to know the treaties between the US and other countries, the laws, and the commercial policy of other nations. They also need to know the law of nations. Even though they don’t take part in foreign negotiations, they still need to pay attention to them when making laws. They can learn some things on their own, but they will learn the most by paying attention to the subject when they are in the legislature.

There are other points to consider, which may not be as important, but still worth looking at. Many of the representatives may have to travel a long way and this could cause a lot of issues if they were only elected for one year. This is different from the delegates of the existing congress. They get elected every year, but they usually get elected again without any trouble. If the people are voting, it won’t be the same.

Some members of the assembly will have better skills than others. Over time, they will become longer-term members and be very knowledgeable about how the business works. If more members are new, they will be more likely to fall into traps. This also applies to the relationship between the House of Representatives and the Senate.

It can be inconvenient when elections happen often in one state, where the legislature only meets once a year. That makes it hard to investigate and get rid of fake elections. So, people use illegal ways to get elected, since they know they will stay in office for a while. If elections for the federal legislature were yearly, this could be a major problem, especially in distant states. It’s hard to speed up the process of investigating and getting rid of illegitimate members. This means that people don’t really fear getting caught using unfair or illegal methods to get a seat.

Taking all of these things into consideration, we can strongly say that holding elections every two years would be beneficial for public affairs while also keeping citizens’ liberties safe.

The Federalist 54:

Written by James Madison

This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.

The next look at the House of Representatives is about how their members are divided up among the different states. This is decided by the same rule that applies to taxes.

It is not being said that the number of people in each state should be the standard for choosing the people who will represent them. The same rule for deciding how much taxes each state should pay probably won’t be argued with, even though this rule is not based on the same idea. In the first case, the rule is about people’s individual rights and it is related to everyone. In the second case, it is about the wealth of the states and it is not always accurate. Even though this rule isn’t perfect when it comes to the wealth and money of the states, it is still the best one that can be used. Plus, it was recently approved by America, so the convention chose it without a problem.

Many agree that numbers should be used to measure representation, or that slaves combined with free citizens should be used to decide how much tax is owed. But does this mean that slaves should also be included in the rule of representation? Slaves are viewed as property, not as people. This means they should be taken into account when looking at property for taxes, but they should not be included in representation, which is based on people. This is the argument against it. On the other hand, some argue that slaves should be included.

We agree with our southern friends that representation is mainly about people and taxes are mainly about property. However, we don’t agree that slaves are just seen as property and not as people. The truth is that the law sees them as both. For example, slaves have to work for someone else, can be bought and sold, and can have their freedom and body punished by someone else. This makes it seem like they are not seen as humans, but as property. On the other hand, the law also protects slaves from violence and makes them punishable for violence against others. This shows that the law does consider them as people and not just property. The Constitution looks at slaves in a mixed way, as people and property, which is the right way to look at them. This is how the laws see them and if the laws changed, slaves would be able to have the same representation rights as other people.

This question can also be looked at from another perspective. Everyone agrees that money is the best way to measure wealth and taxes, and it is the only way to measure representation. If the convention had not included slaves in the list of people when figuring out how many representatives each state should get, but then included them when working out how much taxes each state should pay, would that have been fair? Could the southern states have agreed to such a system, when it treats their slaves as people when it comes to taxes, but not when it comes to giving them advantages? And why should those who criticize the southern states for treating their slaves as property, then say that the government should treat them even more like property?

Some may say that slaves are not counted when deciding how many representatives a state gets. They don’t get to vote or have their master’s vote count more. So why should they be included in the federal estimate of representation? If the Constitution followed the laws that have been mentioned, then slaves would be excluded altogether.

This argument is easily answered. The Constitution states that the number of representatives each state gets is based on the state’s population. It is then up to the state to decide who gets to vote, as the qualifications to vote can be different in each state. The Southern states could argue that the Constitution states that the population should include all people, even those who are not allowed to vote in certain states. However, those who would benefit from this argument are not asking for this to be strictly enforced. They just want the situation with the slaves to be taken into account, as it is an unusual one. The compromise in the Constitution is that slaves are considered to be part of the population, but are not given the same rights as free people and are only counted as two-fifths of a person.

We may look at this issue from another angle. Could it be that representation is related to not only persons, but also property? Government is created to protect both the people and their property. In some states, like New York, there is a branch of government that is elected by people who are interested in protecting property. In the federal Constitution, those who are in charge of the government are responsible for both the personal rights and rights of property. It is important to consider property when choosing people to be in charge of the government.

The number of votes each state gets in the federal legislature should be in proportion to the amount of wealth each state has. Unlike individuals, states don’t have the same advantages. If a wealthy person only gets one vote in the election of their representative, others usually follow their choice. A state doesn’t have this kind of influence over other states. The richest state in the confederacy won’t be able to influence the choice of a representative from another state. The representatives of the larger and wealthier states won’t have any more influence in the federal legislature than those from the smaller states. The new constitution is different from the current confederation and other similar confederacies. In those confederacies, the effectiveness of federal resolutions relies on the states agreeing to them. But under the new constitution, the federal rules take effect without the states having to agree to them. Each vote will be equal, no matter what state it’s from or how wealthy that state is. It’s the same as in a state legislature, where each vote is equal even if it comes from different sizes or wealths of counties.

An advocate for the southern interests might reason that the scale of representation established by the convention is reasonable. It might seem a bit extreme in some areas, but overall it is acceptable. I agree with it.

The setting up of a common way to measure representation and taxes will have positive effects. The accuracy of the census taken by Congress will depend on how willing the states are to help. It is very important that the states do not have any bias to make their numbers look bigger or smaller. If the rule only affected their share of representation, then the states would have an incentive to make their population look bigger. On the other hand, if the rule only affected their share of taxes, the states would want to make their population look smaller. By having the rule apply to both, the states will have opposing interests which will cancel each other out and create fairness.

The Federalist 55:

Written by James Madison

This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.

The House of Representatives is made up of a certain number of people and this is an important factor to consider when thinking about this branch of the federal legislature. Many people have discussed this part of the constitution, and it is a topic that deserves a lot of attention.

The charges against it are that: 1) too few representatives would not be a safe holder of the public’s interests; 2) they wouldn’t know about the needs of their constituents; 3) they wouldn’t understand the feelings of most people and would be more likely to help the few at the cost of the many; and 4) even if the number of representatives started small, it would not grow enough in proportion to the population because of barriers that prevent a bigger increase in representatives.

Generally speaking on this topic, it’s very hard to find an exact answer to the question of how many representatives should be in a legislative body. Different states have different policies on this issue. For example, Delaware’s most populous branch has 21 representatives while Massachusetts has between 300 and 400. Even among states with similar populations, there is a big difference. Pennsylvania has one fifth of the representatives that Massachusetts has, and New York has only one third the number of representatives compared to South Carolina. Georgia has a much higher ratio of representative to electors than any other state, with one representative for every ten electors. In Pennsylvania, the proportion is one representative for every 4 or 5 thousand people, while in Rhode Island it is one for every thousand.

It is clear that in states with many people the number of representatives should not be the same as in states with few people. For example, if Virginia used Rhode Island’s number of representatives, there would be 400-500 now and 1000 in 20-30 years. But if Pennsylvania’s ratio was used in Delaware, the representatives would only be 7-8. When deciding how many representatives a state should have, math is not the only factor to consider. Sixty to seventy people might be more trustworthy than 6-7, but that doesn’t mean 6-7 hundred would be better. In fact, a certain number is needed to make sure decisions are made wisely and there is no confusion. Too many representatives can lead to chaos. Even if every Athenian citizen was like Socrates, their assemblies would still be chaotic.

It is important to remember the ideas discussed when talking about elections that happen every two years. The limited power of Congress and the control of state legislatures means that the elections don’t need to be as often as they could be. This also means that the members of Congress don’t have to be as many as they would if they had all the power and no other limits like other legislative bodies.

When thinking about this, let’s consider the objections that have been made against the amount of people suggested for the House of Representatives. People say that a small amount of people can’t be trusted with that much power.

At the start of the government, there will be 65 members of this part of the legislature. In 3 years, a census will be taken and the number may go up to 1 member for every 30,000 people. This will happen again every 10 years. It’s likely that the first census will make the number of representatives go up to 100. If you count the black people as 3/5ths, then the US population will probably be 3 million. After 25 years, the number of representatives will be 200, and after 50 years, it will be 400. This is enough members that there should be no worries about the size of the group. The number of representatives will be increased from time to time as the constitution says.

The important question is whether a small number of people as temporary leaders could be dangerous to the public freedom. Could 65 people for a few years or 100 or 200 for a few more be trusted with a limited and well-protected power to create laws for the United States? I don’t think so. I can’t imagine the people of America, no matter what the situation, would pick and then keep picking 65 or 100 people who would want to create a plan of tyranny or deceit. I can’t imagine the state legislatures, who want to keep watch of the federal government and have the power to stop any bad plans, would not catch a plan of the federal government to take away people’s freedom. I can’t imagine there are enough people right now or in the near future who would choose to betray the trust given to them. We don’t know what will happen in the future, but looking at now and soon, I don’t think the American people’s freedom will be in danger with the number of people proposed by the federal constitution.

Where could danger come from? Are we worried about foreign money? If foreign money could make our government officials corrupt and lead them to hurt the people they serve, how did we become a free and independent country? The people in charge of the revolution were fewer than the people in charge now. They were chosen for one-year terms or even three-year terms, and they were allowed to stay for longer if needed. They kept their plans secret. They were in charge of how we dealt with other countries. During the war, they had more control than people in the future will have. They wanted to win the war and might have used other methods than violence, but they didn’t. We are lucky because they kept their promise and no one has ever said they were not honest.

Is the government a danger to us? Where would the president or senate get the means to do so? The salaries they get from their jobs are not enough and they are all American citizens so their personal fortunes can’t be a threat. The only way people think they could do something is by giving out appointments. Some people say the president would use this to control the senate, but it’s very unlikely that all the members of the government would do something like that. Luckily, the constitution makes it so that members of Congress can’t have any civil offices during their term. So this means they can’t get any offices unless they become vacant by themselves. People who talk about this kind of thing don’t realize how bad it is for their own cause. We need to trust people and have faith in them, which is why we have a republic. We must not think that people are evil and need to be controlled.

The Federalist 56:

Written by James Madison

This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.

The second accusation against the House of Representatives is that it will be too small to understand the needs and desires of the people it represents.

This objection is based on a comparison of the number of representatives with the size, population, and interests of the United States. To answer this, we must explain the differences between Congress and other legislative bodies.

It is important that the representative knows about the people they are representing. It is not necessary for them to know lots of small details that don’t need to be legislated. To figure out how much information they need, they should focus on the authority they have.

What should the federal government be responsible for? The most important and complex matters, such as commerce, taxes, and the military, need the most attention. These require a good understanding of the local area.

Regulating commerce needs a lot of information, like it was said before. But, when it comes to the laws and situations of each state, only a few representatives are needed to bring the information to federal councils.

Taxation will largely be made up of duties that regulate commerce. For internal taxes, a few intelligent people elected within the state should have enough knowledge. Divide the state into districts, and each representative will have an understanding of the local interests. The laws of the state will also be a great help. So, in many cases, the federal legislature will just review the laws and combine them into one act. A single person with all the local codes could make a law on some subjects of taxation for the entire union. When it comes to taxes that need to be the same across states, simpler objects will be chosen. To see how helpful the state codes will be, just think if the state was divided into parts, each with its own local laws. This would give the general legislature a lot of information and make it so that fewer people would need to be in it.

The federal councils will benefit a lot from another thing. The representatives from each state will not only have knowledge of their laws and know their districts well, but they will probably have been in the state legislature before and may even still be a part of it. This is where all the local info and interests of the state come together, and it will be easy for only a few people to bring it to the United States legislature.

When it comes to regulating the militia, there is hardly any situation that needs local knowledge. The only thing to consider is the general terrain, like if it is hilly or flat, and if it is better suited for infantry or cavalry. The art of war teaches general principles for organization, movement, and discipline that are the same everywhere.

The attentive reader can see that the ideas in this text don’t go against what was said before about the representatives needing a lot of knowledge. This knowledge is needed because each state has different laws and interests. If the laws and interests in each state were the same, then one person from any part of the state could represent the whole state. But when all the states are compared, there are big differences in their laws and other things related to federal law. So, a few representatives from each state can know about their own state, but the representatives need to learn about all the other states too. The makers of the Constitution thought about this and made sure that the government could grow as the population grows.

Great Britain offers people many political lessons, both good and bad. The population of England and Scotland is estimated at 8 million people. The House of Commons, the representative body for these 8 million people, has 558 members. But only one ninth of these members are elected by 364 people, and one half are elected by 5723 people. This means that only 279 people are responsible for the security, interests, and happiness of 8 million people. That is one representative for every 28,670 constituents, in an assembly that has a lot of executive influence and control. Even with this not-ideal situation, Britain has been able to keep a lot of freedom and their laws aren’t too bad. This gives us confidence that having one representative for every 30,000 people would be enough to make sure the representative is a good guardian of the interests of their constituents.

The Federalist 57:

Written by James Madison

This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.

The third accusation against the House of Representatives is that it will be taken from the citizens who are least likely to be understanding of or sympathetic to the majority of the population; and these people are most likely to be selfish and try to make the few more powerful, even if it means sacrificing the many.

Of all the objections to the federal constitution, this one is particularly strange. The objection is made to a possible oligarchy, but it goes against the core of a republic.

The goal of all political systems should be to pick rulers who have the most wisdom and virtue to work for the good of the society. The way most republics do this is by having elections. To make sure the rulers stay responsible to the people, they have a limited time they can hold their position.

Can someone explain to me what is wrong with the government of the House of Representatives? Does everything fit in with the principles of a republican government? Are the rights of all citizens considered equally and without any bias?

Who will be the electors of the federal representatives? Not the wealthy, more than the poor; not the educated, more than the uneducated; not the privileged, more than the less fortunate. The electors will be a large group of people from the United States. They are the same people who vote for their state’s legislature.

Who should people choose? Any citizen who has earned the respect and trust of their country. There should not be any restrictions based on wealth, family, religious beliefs, or job. People should be free to choose whoever they think is best.

If we think about the people who are chosen by their fellow citizens to be representatives, we can see that there are many ways to make sure that they will be faithful to their voters.

At the start, we can assume that the people who have been elected by their fellow citizens have the qualities necessary for the job. We can trust that they will be sincere and careful when it comes to fulfilling their duties.

Second, they will enter public service with circumstances that will likely lead to their constituents having positive feelings towards them. Every person has a sensitivity to being honored, favored, respected and trusted. This, without considering any benefit, gives a promise of gratefulness and kindness in return. It is often said that people are ungrateful, and unfortunately there are many examples of this in both public and private life. But the widespread and strong anger against it is proof that the opposite feeling is still strong.

Thirdly, the ties that connect the representative to their constituents are strengthened by self-serving motivations. Their pride and vanity attach them to a form of government that grants them privileges, honors, and status. Most of those who get their position from the people will hope to keep their favor, rather than risk changes to the government that could take away the people’s power.

Elections are needed to make sure that all securities are taken care of. This is why the House of Representatives is set up the way it is. It is so that the members will always remember that they answer to the people. Before they get too comfortable with their power, they will need to think about the day when their power ends, when people will rate how they did their job, and when they will go back to the same place they came from. Unless they did a good job, they will stay there forever.

I will add one more thing about the House of Representatives that will keep them from doing anything unfair. They can’t make a law that won’t affect them and their friends the same way as it will affect everyone else. This is seen as one of the best ways to make sure the rulers and the people are connected. It creates a bond between them that very few governments have been able to do. If someone were to ask what will stop the House of Representatives from favoring themselves and a certain group of people? I would answer that it is the whole system, the laws, and most of all the people of America. The people have a strong spirit that helps keep freedom alive.

If this way of thinking ever sinks so low that a law can be accepted without the same expectations of the lawmakers as the people, people will accept anything except freedom.

The relationship between the House of Representatives and their constituents will be based on duty, gratitude, interest, and ambition. Even though these things may not be enough to prevent people from being capricious and wicked, they are still the best options available to a republic government that wants to ensure the freedom and happiness of its people. Therefore, those who say they care about republican government but then criticize its key principles and suggest that people will only choose representatives who will betray them, are wrong.

If someone who had not seen the way in which representatives are chosen according to the Constitution read this, they might think that you have to have a certain amount of money or be from a certain family to be allowed to vote. We have seen that this is not true. The only difference between the two is that to vote for a representative of the United States, you have to be one of 5 or 6 thousand people, whereas in individual states, you only have to be one of a few hundred. Does this difference mean that people should prefer the state governments over the federal government? If this is the question, it should be looked at.

Can it be supported by reason that 5 or 6 thousand citizens are less able to choose a suitable representative or more likely to be influenced by an unsuitable one than 5 or 6 hundred? On the contrary, it makes sense that in such a large number of people it is more likely that a suitable representative will be chosen, and it is less likely that the choice will be swayed by the ambitions of the powerful or the bribes of the wealthy.

Can the consequence of this belief be accepted? If we say that only five or six hundred citizens are allowed to take part in voting, won’t this mean that the people won’t be able to choose their own public servants if the government doesn’t need as many as that number of citizens?

Is the belief justified by facts? The last paper showed that the true representation in the British House of Commons is not much more than one for every 30,000 people. There are many factors that help the high-status and wealthy people in Britain, which don’t exist in other places. To be eligible to represent a county, a person must own property worth 600 pounds a year, and to represent a city or borough they must own property worth 300 pounds a year. To vote in a county, a person must have a freehold estate worth at least 20 pounds a year. Despite these difficult conditions, it can’t be said that the representatives have made the rich richer and the poorer poorer.

We don’t have to look outside the US to get an answer. Our own experience is clear and decisive. In states like New Hampshire, where senators are chosen by the people, the districts are almost big enough to elect representatives to Congress. In Massachusetts, they’re even bigger. In New York, the districts have around the same number of voters as what would be needed to elect 65 representatives to Congress. It doesn’t matter if in the same district, people can vote for more than one representative. If they can vote for 4 or 5 people, they can vote for just one. Pennsylvania is another example. Some counties there, which are large enough to elect state representatives, are also close to the size of districts for federal representatives. In Philadelphia, for instance, there are at least 50,000 people– that’s enough for almost two districts. But it’s still just one county, where people can vote for each representative in the state legislature. What’s even more to the point, the whole city can vote for one member of the Executive Council. This is true for all the other counties in the state.

Are the facts we have discussed enough proof that the federal government branch we are talking about is wrong? Has it been proven that the senators from New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York, the executive council of Pennsylvania, or the members of the assembly in those two states have been more likely to favor the few over the many or have been less worthy of their positions than other states’ representatives and magistrates who were chosen by smaller numbers of people?

In Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and this state, a part of the legislature and the governor are elected by the entire population. This means that each person in the state has a say in who is chosen for these important positions. This experiment shows that a system where all people can elect their representatives does not lead to traitors being chosen or public liberty being weakened.

The Federalist 58

Written by James Madison

This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.

The last accusation against the House of Representatives is based on the idea that the number of members will not grow as the population increases.

It has been accepted that this complaint, if it is backed up by evidence, would be very important. The following ideas will prove that, like many other objections to the constitution, this one can only come from not looking at the whole picture carefully; or from being too suspicious, which makes everything seem worse than it really is.

1. Those who argue against this point don’t seem to remember that the federal constitution is just as secure as state constitutions in providing a gradual increase of representatives. The original number is only temporary, and only lasts for three years.

Every ten years, a census is taken of the people living in the country. This is done so that the number of representatives in Congress can be adjusted according to the number of people living in each state. Each state has to have at least one representative, but the total number of representatives can never be more than one for every thirty thousand people. Some states have laws about this, but others do not. Usually the only protection is a recommendation about the number of representatives.

2. In terms of what has happened so far on this topic, the number of representatives in state constitutions has grown at the same rate as the number of people they represent. It seems that the representatives have been just as eager to agree to new measures as the people have been to ask for them.

3. There is something special in the federal constitution that makes sure people and their representatives pay attention to adding to the legislature. This is because one branch is made up of citizens and the other of states. That means the bigger states have more power in the first branch and the smaller states have an advantage in the other. This means the bigger states will usually want to add to the branch that they have power in. Only four of the biggest states will have a majority in the House of Representatives. So if the smaller states don’t agree to add members, a few states can join together to outvote them. This can happen even if the states don’t usually get along, as long as it is fair and follows the constitution.

It could be said that the Senate might join together to prevent the House of Representatives from getting what they want. This has worried people who are in favor of having many representatives. However, when you look at the situation more closely, it becomes clear that this won’t happen. These ideas should be convincing and make the situation clear.

Despite the same powers that both houses will have when it comes to deciding laws, except for bills about money, it is clear that the house with more members, that also represents the bigger states and the opinion of the majority of people, will have an advantage when it comes to being more determined in their decisions.

This advantage must be strengthened by the awareness on the same side that they are demanding something that is right, reasonable, and in line with the constitution; and the awareness on the other side that they are going up against the power of all these important points.

It is important to think about that fact that, between the smallest and biggest states, there are a few who are not too different in size and population from the biggest ones. So, it is not sure that a majority of votes in the senate would be against increasing the number of representatives in government.

It’s not hard to see that the senators from the new states can be convinced to agree with the house of representatives. This is because these states will grow quickly in population. This means the large states will be able to control the re-apportionments and increases in the number of representatives. So, the senators from the growing states will have to fight for more representatives by representing their states’ interests in the re-apportionments.

These ideas provide enough protection on this topic. Even if they aren’t enough to make the smaller states stop their unfair practices or their control of the Senate, the larger states have a sure way to achieve their goals. This is the House of Representatives, which has the power to decide how much money the government will get. In the history of the British system, we can see how the people’s representation grew in importance and power, even shrinking the powers of other branches of government. This control of the money is the strongest weapon a constitution can give to the representatives of the people to make sure their complaints are heard and their good ideas are put into effect.

Will the House of Representatives be interested in keeping the government running properly like the Senate? If it was tested, which branch would give in first? People who think about this will understand that when the people in power are fewer and have a more important job, they will be more invested in the government. This is why the British House of Commons often wins against the other branches of the government when money is involved. The Senate or President will do their best to resist, but it won’t be more than the Constitutional and patriotic principles that support them.

In this review of the Constitution of the House of Representatives, I skipped over how it could have affected the number of representatives in the present state of affairs. I also left out any thoughts on the difficulty of finding the right people to take the federal service. One thing I must mention though is that more people in a legislative assembly means the more power of passion over reason, and more people with limited information and weak capabilities. This means that a few can control the many. In the past, a single person could rule a whole group of people. The same is true for representative assemblies. The more people, the more people with lack of knowledge and power can be taken advantage of. People should be aware that having too many representatives can weaken the government and give more control to a few.

In regards to the objection of the number of representatives, it should be noted that an issue has been raised against the number of people allowed to do legislative work. It has been said that more than just a majority should be needed to make decisions, and in certain situations, more than a majority of a quorum should be required to make a decision.

Advantages may have come from this kind of protection, but they are outweighed by the problems it causes. In a free government, the majority should rule, not the minority. If some people are exempt from certain laws, they could use this to their advantage, or take advantage of others in a tough situation. This could also lead to people leaving the group, which could cause chaos and ruin the government.

---