William_T._Bianco,_David_T._Canon]_American_Polit

The politics of compromise at the Constitutional Convention 43

FIGURE

Connecticut’s Pivotal Place at the (^) 2.2
Constitutional Convention
Though there were many disagreements over the details of America’s new constitution, one of the most intense focused on how states would be
represented in Congress, either allocating representatives equally or based on population. After other plans were considered and rejected, the
Connecticut Compromise won out. Why do you think Connecticut was well positioned to find a compromise? How do these graphs help us understand
why the Virginia and New Jersey Plans were in conflict and ultimately rejected?

0 200,000 400,000 600,000

Total population

(4 states)

1.8 million

Total population

(9 states)

1.6 million

Median

Population

State

Virginia

Pennsylvania

Massachusetts

North Carolina

New York

Maryland

Connecticut

South Carolina

New Jersey

New Hampshire

Georgia

Rhode Island

Delaware

State Populations at the Time of the Constitutional Convention

NY

More National

Power

More State

Power

Equal

Representation

Representation by

Population

NJ

MD

DE

PA

VA

MA

NH

NC

GASC

CT

Votes at the Constitutional Convention

Source: Keith L. Dougherty and Jac C. Heckelman, “A Pivotal Voter from a Pivotal State: Roger Sherman at the Constitutional Convention,” American Political Science

Review 100:2 (May 2006): 298.

two-thirds of both chambers. This requirement gave the president a significant role

in the legislative process.

Hamilton and the other New Yorkers favored a strong executive. This was probably

because the governorship of New York closely resembled the type of executive that the

Constitution envisioned. The governor of New York was elected by the people rather

than by the legislature, served for three years, and was eligible for reelection. The

office also had a legislative veto power and considerable control over appointments

to politically controlled jobs. The arguments the New Yorkers made on behalf of the

strong executive relied heavily on the philosophy of John Locke. Locke saw the general

superiority of a government of laws created by legislatures, but he also saw the need

for an executive with more flexible leadership powers, or what he called “prerogative

powers.” Legislatures are unable, Locke wrote, “to foresee, and so by laws to provide for

all accidents and necessities.” They also are, by virtue of their size and unwieldiness,

too slow to alter and adapt the law in times of crisis, when the executive could step in to

pursue policies in the public’s interest.

Although there was support for this view, the Antifederalists were concerned that if

such powers were viewed as open-ended they could give rise to the type of oppressive

leader the framers were trying to avoid. Madison attempted to reassure the opponents

of executive power, arguing that any prerogative powers would have to be clearly

enumerated in the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution explicitly provides only one

extraordinary executive power: the right to grant reprieves and pardons, which means

that the president can forgive any crimes against the federal government.

Full_03_APT_64431_ch02_030-069.indd 43 16/11/18 1:30 PM