Question

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.

the effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. on the other hand, the effect may be inverted. men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. the question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

in the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

factious: caused by a faction; inclined to form a faction
cabal: a group of people secretly united in a plot

source analysis
highlight or underline why madison makes about why a republic is the best form of government.

source analysis
circle the evidence on this page that madison uses to support his claim about the best form of government.

connect to the content
how is what madison describes on this page evident in the structure of the u.s. government?
handwritten notes: “he talks about learning how the us is ran with the representatives and what not. it also talks about 4” (partial text)

Explanation:

Source Analysis 1 (Highlight why Madison says republic is best)

Madison argues a republic is best for two main reasons: 1) Delegation of government to a small number of elected citizens (refines public views, avoids temporary/partial considerations, and the public voice via representatives is more consonant with public good than direct public voice, which may be perverted by factionalism, intrigue, etc.). 2) Extensive republics (larger countries) are better for electing proper guardians of public weal (greater number of representatives relative to constituents in small republics, but large republics have greater option of fit characters, so greater probability of good choice). We highlight these claims about delegation and the advantages of extensive republics for governance.

Evidence supports his claim that republic is best. For delegation: "by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people." For extensive republics: "In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice." These are the evidences as they show how republic (delegation, extensive) is better than democracy or small republics.

Madison’s ideas are seen in: 1) Representative Government: U.S. is a republic with elected representatives (Congress, President elected indirectly via Electoral College, etc.) rather than direct democracy, matching his delegation point (public voice via representatives). 2) Extensive Republic (Federalism): U.S. is a large republic with states (smaller republics) and federal government. The House of Representatives has a minimum number per state (guarding against cabals in small states) and a total limit (guarding against multitude in large republic), and larger states have more representatives but not proportionally, so greater option for fit characters (e.g., more diverse pool in large states, increasing chance of good representatives). Also, federalism allows the republic to cover a large sphere (whole country), as Madison said republics can extend over larger areas.

Answer:

• Delegation Reason: "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;... Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves... Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people."
• Extensive Republic Reason: "The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favourable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations: In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice."

Source Analysis 2 (Circle evidence for his claim)