Federalist #52

The House of Representatives  (Madison)

 *Both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were cited as authors of this essay, so both are cited in this summary as authors together.

In this essay, Hamilton/Madison outline the reasoning for two-year elections for the House of Representatives. They first lay out the previsions for persons who desire to serve in the national legislature. Second, Hamilton/Madison provide historical examples from the United Kingdom and its history surrounding the electoral cycle of the House of Commons and the relationship between it, the monarchy, and the people. Finally, they conclude with the assertion that two-year elections for the House would not harm the people and provide a check on legislative power.

First, Hamilton/Madison outline the reasoning that right of suffrage is considered to be a fundamental right outlined in the convention. The legislature should be watched and beholden to the people alone and it should not be regulated by either Congress or the individual state legislatures. Also, having a federal standard does not put the federal branch under the responsibility of the states, and it also allows for uniformity across all states for federal office without interfering with individual requirements for state office-holders. The basic requirement for any person to hold federal legislative office is to be at least 25 years old, have lived in the United States for seven years, be a resident of the state of which they represent in the House of Representatives, and during such time, hold no United States office.

They then shift to the issue of frequent elections and their importance to the preservation of liberty. Citing the House of Commons of Great Britain, Hamilton/Madison show how the process evolved from one of monarchical control that limited how and when a new election could be called to a requirement that a new parliament must be called no later than three years after the conclusion of the previous. In Ireland, legislative vacancies were only filled by royal decree on rare occasion, and elections were called at times of royal accession. For example, during the reign of George II, the parliament lasted for a period of 35 years before another election was called. In recent times, elections were then called on a more regular basis. This, they believe, provide the people with a needed connection with their representatives.

Finally, Hamilton/Madison shift to examples of the differing election timelines set forth by the former American colonies, which ranged from one to seven years. They argue that liberty is best preserved by two-year elections where the actions of the Congress are not only monitored by the people through frequent elections, but also through the observance of the multiple state legislatures, something that is not seen in any other legislative body. By having bi-annual elections, Hamilton/Madison argue, federal representatives’ ability to abuse their office is greatly reduced on one hand while on the other, stands the frequent monitoring of their actions by the people, and the likelihood of removal f such behavior is undertaken.