Majority Rule versus Minority Rights
A central problem for any representative democracy is protecting minority rights
within a system ruled by the majority. The framers thought of this issue not in terms
of racial and ethnic minorities (as we might today), but in terms of regional and
economic minorities. How could the framers be sure that small landowners and poorer
people would not impose onerous taxes on the wealthier minority? How could they
guarantee that dominant agricultural interests would not impose punitive tariffs on
manufacturing while allowing free export of farmed commodities? The answers to
these questions can be found in Madison’s writings on the problem of factions.
Madison defined a “faction” as a group motivated by selfish interests against the
common good. If these interests prevailed, it could produce the very kind of tyranny
that the Americans had fought to escape during the Revolutionary War. Madison was
especially concerned about tyranny by majority factions because, in a democracy,
minority tyranny would be controlled by the republican principle: the majority could
simply vote out the minority faction. If, however, the majority always rules, majority
tyranny could be a real problem. Given the understanding of selfish human nature that
Madison so clearly outlined, a populist, majoritarian democracy would not necessarily
promote the common good. However, if too many protections were provided to minority
and regional interests, the collective interest would not be served because constructive
changes could be vetoed too easily, as under the Articles of Confederation.
Madison’s solution to this problem provided the justification for our form of
government. He argued that to control majority tyranny, factions must be set against one
another to counter each other’s ambitions and prevent the tyranny of any single majority
faction. This was to be accomplished through the “double protection” of the separation
of powers within the national government in the form of checks and balances, and by
further dividing power across the levels of state and local governments.
Madison also argued that additional protection against majority tyranny would
come from the “size principle.” That is, the new nation would be a large and diverse
republic in which majority interests would be less likely to organize and therefore less
able to dominate. According to Madison, “Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater
variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole
will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common
motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength,
and to act in unison with each other.”^13 This insight provides the basis for modern
pluralism, a political theory that makes the same argument about the crosscutting
interests of groups today.
The precise contours of Madison’s solution still had to be hammered out at the
convention, but the general principle pleased both the Antifederalists and the
Federalists. State governments would maintain some autonomy, but the national
government would become stronger than it had been under the Articles. The issue
was striking the appropriate balance: none of the framers favored a pure populist
majoritarian democracy, and few wanted to protect minority rights to the extent that
the Articles had.Small states versus large states
The question of the appropriate balance came to an immediate head in a debate
between small-population and large-population states over representation
in the national legislature. Under the Articles, every state had a single vote,pluralism
The idea that having a variety
of parties and interests within a
government will strengthen the
system, ensuring that no group
possesses total control.James Madison argued that it is
beneficial to put the interests of one
group in competition with the interests
of other groups, so that no one group
can dominate government. He hoped
to achieve this through the separation
of powers across different branches of
the national government and across
the national, state, and local levels.Full_03_APT_64431_ch02_030-069.indd 41 16/11/18 1:30 PM