Federalist 10, in Modern English
by I had to analyze this document for an assignment, so first I translated it to plain, modern English. Much easier to read, and otherwise unabridged.
Secondly, each representative is chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large republic than in the small republic, so it will be more difficult for corrupt politicians to win elections, and because there is more freedom to vote, the people will be more likely to pick the politicians with the best character.
Of course, there will be exceptions. With too great a number of representatives, each one becomes out of touch with his or her local circumstances; but with too few representatives, each will be too attached to these interests, and will have no mind for grander issues. The federal Constitution is good in this way because it is a balance of national and state legislatures.
The other point of difference is, more citizens and territory can be governed by a republic than by a democracy, and because of this factions do not have to be dreaded as much in a republic. The smaller the society, the fewer interests and parties there will be within it; the fewer the interests and parties, the more frequently a majority of some party will win; and the smaller the number of people making up a majority, the smaller the area in which they are, and the more easily they will be able to weild power. With a larger amount of people and area, you include a greater variety of perties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority will have a common reason to ignore the rights of other citizens; or if one does exist, it will be more difficult for that majority to execute power by acting in unison. One of the reasons why is because wherever people are aware of injustice in general, communication will always be checked by distrust in proportion to how many are communicating.
Hence, it’s obvious that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy in controlling factions works even better in a large republic than in a small one, namely by the Union over the states which compose it. Does the advantage consist of representatives who are wise enough not to fall for prejudice and injustice? Obviously, no union will be fully able to eradicate this chance. Does it consist of greater security because of a greater variety of parties? To the same degree, that variety of parties is found in a Union, which increases this security. Does it provide greater obstacles against injustice of a majority? Again, the vastness of the Union gives it a greater advantage.
The influence of factions may cause problems within particular states, but in a larger union will be unable to cause as much trouble. A religious sect may turn into a political faction, but the variety of sects throughout the Union will not allow just one to be any danger. A rage for paper money, an abolition of debts, an equal division of property, or any other improper or wicked project, will be less able to spread through the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it, in the same proportion as a problem is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we consider a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.
PUBLIUS
Liked it
