Philosophies concerning the New Republic

James Madison meant for a republic to be a representative democracy. We also agree that a political system can prosper or work efficiently in a larger republic. In a large republic, he thought, where there is more interest among citizens, the factions could not succeed. Factions, one of Madison's opposition, there must be a majority among a small republic to oppress their fellow citizens and their rights. Madison believed that the greater the sphere of the nation factions would dominate and less likely the greater interest of the people prevails. In addition, Madison thought that people could not rule immediately republic (Hamilton, pp67).

Differentiate, the current use of direct representative democracy, thereby making it appear both regimes as varieties of democracy. However, both history and theory show that the regime now called representative democracy have its origins in the form of government and imposed progressively established in the West in the wake of three modern revolutions: the English, American and French. Analysis, even superficial, cannot help but notice the elements of continuity between the institutions proposed or established in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and those belonging to the current representative democracies. Continuity is particularly notable in the American case, in which most of the provisions of the constitution passed in 1787 remains in force. However, this regime that has come out representative democracy was not conceived in any way by its creators as a form of democracy. By contrast, in the writings of its founding members is a sharp contrast between democracy and the regime instituted by them, a system they called "representative government" or even "republic."

Madison repeatedly opposed the "republican", characterized by representation, and "democracy" of small ancient, towns. However, no representation describes as an approximation of "democracy" become technically necessary by the impossibility of gathering ...