In this paper, Madison continues his defense of biennial elections for members of the House. He rejects the notion that liberty is confined to a “single point of time” and that elections must take place annually in order to minimize the risk of tyranny. He points to the fact that elections occur with varying frequency in the different states without any discernable difference in the degree of liberty enjoyed by each state.
Madison suggests further that since the congress cannot change the fundamental form of government (i.e. amend the constitution) on its own, there is less risk in having elections on a biennial instead of annual basis. Madison furthermore suggests that it takes time for congresspersons to understand the complex issues facing them at the federal. One year would be insufficient for acquiring sufficient knowledge to make informed decisions.
Finally, Madison points to certain practical issues such as the inconvenience of traveling long distances to congress to serve only a one year term. He also warns that one year would not afford enough time to remove from office congresspersons who took office through fraudulent or illegitimate means in order to accomplish some corrupt agenda.
Analysis:
Madison seeks to reassure his readers that their liberty will be secure under the proposed Constitution. He appeals to his audience’s pragmatism and asks them to think critically about the widely held assumption that the safest form of republican government is one in which the representatives are elected annually. He reminds them that the American Congress will be different from previous republican legislatures in that it will be limited in its powers by a supreme law, the Constitution. Unlike the British parliament, Congress cannot change the fundamental law of the land by a mere legislative act. Thus, there is little cause to fear that, in the span of two years, elected representatives of the people will succeed in imposing tyranny.
