Factions have always been a concern in any form of government but especially in a republican form of government because we take our freedoms so seriously and do not want to be controlled by one interest group. Thankfully, the Constitution sets up a system of government which limits the power of factions. Factions in our country are further limited due to competing geographical interest within a faction. Ironically, James Madison’s initial concern with factions is extremely interesting because he would later use them extensively in his political career. His concerns are valid enough though, that they have stood the test of time and are legitimate concerns for constituents in the 21st century.
The first concern: the peoples’ will would be thrown aside to accommodate the agenda of the faction. Although this fear results from historical accounts, it is more an outgrowth of the British occupancy of the colonies through the years. The British would disregard the colonists’ interests and govern according to their interest to further the British Empire. This leads into Madison’s second concern: the public good is disregarded in the conflict of rival parties. A prime example of this would be the government shutdown in 1995-1996. The two parties were looking out for their own interest that they felt were important to their constituents but in the process caused huge problems with running the government. Thirdly a “superior force of an interested and overbearing majority decides measures.” [i]Some liberals would suggest that the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress would fall into this category. Their view is that the new leaders pushed legislation through that furthered their own interest and began initiating severe cuts in social programs. The Democrats, although the minority, used this to their advantage to show that Republicans only care about one group the wealthy. Obamacare would be a more current example where conservatives and really every day Americans believed the Democrat party was overreaching in their legislative powers. This leads into Madison’s fourth concern of the rich versus the poor and how they naturally form factions, which are good for the government, because the conflicting principles form modern legislation.
Although Madison presents valid arguments against factions, he realized that they are inevitable and cannot be eliminated. That to eliminate factions would trample on people’s liberty and “Liberty is to Faction, what air is to fire, an ailment without which it instantly expires.” [ii]Without liberty, the people would never be heard, and the Revolution would have been pointless; they were living in such a situation under the British and did not want to repeat the mistakes of that era. Without liberty, everyone would be required to have the same opinions, passions, and interests and this is not possible. It is not possible because men are fallible and have the right to express this fallibility to allow different opinions to emerge.
Madison’s solutions for controlling the factions are simple and straightforward. First, the country needs to be a republic and not a pure democracy. Consequently, representatives need to be elected that represent a proportion of the population neither too large nor too small. This enables a blending of views to form a national consensus. By bringing together a limited number of people representing a vast area, interest specific factions are severely limited within the legislative process because of their competing geographical interest. This type of large republic with small representation creates a happy medium where all interest is heard yet representatives do not get attached to their constituents thereby reducing factions that would trample on people’s liberties.
Secondly, the House of Representatives limits the use of factions because of the creation of single member districts (smds), the way district lines are drawn using a census, and limiting the number of representatives to 435. In the winner takes all situation of smds, there is no incentive for more than two parties. However, the drawbacks would be the formation of special interest groups that cover interests disregarded by the mainstream parties thus factions are formed to a degree, but their effects are limited because they are not legislating due to a lack of voter participation due to their party identification. Single Member District also helps to ensure that there are deviations from party line voting because the congressional member has to appeal to their district in order to be re-elected.
Thirdly, the Constitution limits factions in several ways. One by implementing a census every ten years to proportion representation among the states. This results in congressional district lines being redrawn and the possibility of new representation in office as well as shifting representatives from one state to another depending on population growth or loss while maintaining that each state must have at least one representative so that its interest can be heard. Another restriction placed on the legislature by the Constitution is the number of years a Senator or Representative can serve at any given time. It was supposed to create a decent amount of turnover so that power did not get concentrated in the hands of a few people. For most of our history this was true, however since the early part of the 20th century, Congress has become more professionalized with a larger workload. Additionally, by making the Vice President the tie breaking vote in the Senate, the national interest may be better served. This is because the vice president like the President is elected by the nation and not a select group of individuals like the Representatives or Senators. Congress put additional limits on factions by limiting the number of representatives to 435 in 1929 when the Permanent Apportionment Act was passed. This creates larger constituencies thereby reducing the effects of special interest members.
Although Federalist Paper No. 10 failed to eliminate parties, it did help to limit factions by putting forth the idea of Single Member District and pointing out the deficiencies of the factions.
[i] Federalist Paper No. 10 pg. 43
[ii] Federalist Papers No. 10 pg. 43
