Congress

 

So, a while back I encountered the legend that Lock or Montisque suggested the bicameral legislature, and I thought that might be so, because of the complexity of the two systems the Founders formulated.

Today, I encountered a legend that Madison was opposed to the Connecticut Compromise. This conflicts my sense of the evolution of the inadequacy of the political system.

26-09-03 Gemini research dialog

Did James Madison disapprove of the Connecticut Compromise?

Yes, James Madison strongly disapproved of the Connecticut Compromise (also known as the Great Compromise) during the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

As the primary architect of the Virginia Plan, Madison championed a national government built on proportional representation in both houses of the legislature, meaning states with larger populations would have more influence. He believed this was essential for a functioning, rational national government.

His opposition to the Connecticut Compromise was rooted in several key concerns:

• Fear of State Sovereignty Resurgence: Madison wanted a true national republic that derived its authority directly from the people, rather than a confederation of sovereign states. Granting every state equal votes in the Senate (the core of the compromise) resurrected what he viewed as the fatal flaw of the Articles of Confederation—giving small states disproportionate leverage to block national interests.
  
  
• The "Minority Rule" Threat: He argued that equal state representation allowed a minority of the American population residing in smaller states to override the will of the majority, undermining republican principles.
  
  
• A Bitter Defeat: When the compromise narrowly passed (by a single vote), Madison and fellow nationalists like James Wilson viewed it as a major setback and a bitter defeat.
  
  

Despite his intense initial disapproval, Madison pragmatically pivoted after the convention to ensure the survival of the new constitution. During the ratification fight, he famously co-authored The Federalist Papers, where he defended the finalized constitutional structure—including the Senate and its equal state representation—as a necessary practical compromise to save the Union.

\

How was it decided that the Senate would be elected by the state legislatures?

During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the decision to have state legislatures elect U.S. senators (as outlined in Article I, Section 3 of the original Constitution) was reached through debate as a core part of balancing federalism and reining in what the framers saw as the excessive democracy of the states.

The mechanism was shaped by several key intentions:

• Protecting Federalism and State Power: The framers wanted to give state governments a direct structural stake and voice in the national government. By allowing state legislatures to choose senators, the states possessed a built-in defense mechanism to protect their sovereign powers from being overridden or absorbed by the federal government.
  
  
• Creating a "Filter" Against Popular Passions: While the House of Representatives was designed to be directly elected by the people to reflect immediate public opinion, the Senate was envisioned as a more stable, deliberative, and cooling body. The framers believed state legislatures would act as a discerning filter to select more experienced, wiser individuals who could resist rash populist impulses.
  
  
• Insulating Senators from Public Pressure: Choosing senators indirectly meant they would not have to pander to short-term public moods, allowing them to take a long-range view of national policy and maintain stability in governance.
  
  

This indirect election system remained in place until 1913, when mounting issues like legislative deadlocks, corruption, and bribery led to the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment, which shifted the choice directly to the voters.

What republican principles did the Founders refer to in favor of a proportional Senate?

• Popular Sovereignty: The foundational belief that government derives its just powers directly from the consent of the governed, meaning political weight should follow the distribution of the population rather than arbitrary geographic boundaries.
  
  
• Majority Rule: The principle that within a republic, the will of the numerical majority of citizens ought to prevail, which proportional advocates argued was violated when smaller populations held equal legislative veto power.
  
  
• Political Equality: The concept that individual citizens should have an equal voice and vote in governance, meaning a citizen in a populous state should not possess a fraction of the voting power held by a citizen in a sparsely populated state.
  
  
• Direct Representation: The idea that the legislature should act as a faithful mirror of the people at large, reflecting national public opinion rather than functioning as a diplomatic congress of sovereign states.