Federalist #53

The House of Representatives (cont.)  (Madison)

In their continuation of a defense for bi-annual elections for the Congress, Hamilton and Madison believe that such an election cycle would not harm liberty. They cite the varying election cycles across the states as examples to support their case. Finally, having bi-annual elections versus annual ones could be a hardship for members, citing travel and the time needed to understand important legislative issues as practical reasoning for a two-year election period.

Hamilton and Madison open with the notion that liberty through the periodic electoral cycle is not tied to a singular point in time; rather it is alterable to the variances of society. Hamilton and Madison cite the differing election cycles in various states (from every half-year in Connecticut and Rhode Island to as far out as bi-annual in South Carolina) with the overall conclusion that despite their differing cycle periods for election, the New England states are no better governed than that of South Carolina (the period of time proposed for federal elections). They further posit that having bi-annual elections does not put the people at risk because unlike in other nations (Great Britain, for example), the federal legislature does not have the sole power to alter the Constitution, and as a result, liberty is preserved to a much greater extent. With this very strong barrier in place to prevent wholesale change in the structure of government (and subsequently the changing of elections), a bi-annual election cycle could be permitted at the federal level in the United States, in contrast to other locations where an annual check on power is required to prevent such actions from occurring.

Hamilton and Madison then shift to the more practical aspect for having bi-annual elections, that of accumulated experience and the consideration for great travel by members of the legislature. They cite the difference between the states and the country as a singular unit, one of great distance and varying laws and regulations. A state legislator can accumulate needed knowledge within a year because in such states, laws are uniform and distances are shorter. In contrast, the United States is vast, has varying geography, laws, and regulations requiring a longer time for members to obtain the needed experience to facilitate sound legislative judgment. They ask “how can foreign trade be properly regulated by uniform laws, without some acquaintance with the commerce, the ports, the usages, and the regulatious [sic] of the different States?” They further ask about the experience needed for taxation, the military, and other legislative tasks requiring accumulated knowledge across the vast expanse of the country, something that cannot be obtained within one year, they contend. Finally, foreign policy and international commercial regulation is cited as a major hindrance for annual elections. In closing, Hamilton and Madison suggest that two-year elections allow for travel to be considered, especially from the more distance states and that the federal legislative process is paramount to that of any individual state, and thus, requiring more time between elections.