Framers' Vision: Democracy And The Constitution

The framers of the US Constitution had a complex view of democracy. They were cautious about direct democracy, associating it with mob rule and potential tyranny of the majority. Instead, they favored a system known as a republic, a form of representative democracy. The framers believed that elected representatives would be better equipped to make decisions serving the public good, and that representatives, possessing wisdom and expertise, could better discern the interests of the country. They also believed that a republic would protect minority rights and foster a balance of power.

Explore related products

Democracy’s Chief Executive: Interpreting the Constitution and Defining the Future of the Presidency

$29.95 $29.95

Money and Liberty: How the Framers’ Obsession with Protecting Your Money Shaped the Constitution

$9.99 $14.99

Making Democracy Count: How Mathematics Improves Voting, Electoral Maps, and Representation

$15.57 $32

The Federalist Papers (Dover Thrift Editions: American History)

$7.14 $8

Constitutional Framers: Not Philosophes, but Aristocrats

$0.99

Re-Framers: 170 Eccentric, Visionary, and Patriotic Proposals to Rewrite the U.S. Constitution

$68.9 $98

Democracy as a dirty word

The framers of the US Constitution had a complex view of democracy. They were wealthy and expected their class to continue guiding the nation. They were not champions of democracy and saw it as a form of "mob rule". They were cautious about direct democracy, believing it could lead to chaos and instability, with majorities being easily swayed by passion, potentially undermining individual rights and property. They were concerned about populism and mob rule, and worried that direct democracy could lead to tyranny of the majority.

The framers believed that direct democracy could result in the oppression of minority groups and the suppression of their rights. They favoured a system known as a republic, a form of representative democracy, where the people's will would be expressed through elected representatives rather than through direct voting on issues. They designed a mixed form of government, incorporating elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy, distributing power among various institutions to prevent any one group from gaining too much control.

The framers also believed that elected representatives would be better equipped to make decisions serving the public good, as they possessed wisdom and expertise. They saw to it that only one part of one branch of the federal government, the House of Representatives, was popularly elected by the people. The Electoral College chooses the president, and originally, senators were selected by state legislatures. The framers wrote in a process for changing or amending the Constitution, and they included the right to protest actions like boycotts.

The framers' concerns about direct democracy are reflected in the Constitution's limited use of the word "democracy". It is used only once, in the Preamble, and in reference to Congress. This suggests that the framers viewed democracy with caution and wanted to ensure a balanced and fair government, preventing any one person or group from having too much authority or control.

Distrust of direct democracy

The framers of the US Constitution were among the wealthiest people in the colonies when they drafted and signed the document. They expected the young nation to be guided by people of wealth and education, and they did not intend for it to be a direct democracy where all Americans could vote on all issues. Instead, they believed that the common people, the poor and uneducated, should participate indirectly through local government, town halls, meetings, and protest actions.

The framers were concerned about populism and mob rule and believed that direct democracy would lead to the rights of the minority being suppressed by the dominating majority. They also worried about the efficiency of ballot-counting and that direct democracy would not be the best way to resist manipulative politicians.

The framers' distrust of direct democracy is reflected in the Constitution, which provides for only one part of one branch of the federal government, the House of Representatives, to be popularly elected by the people. The Electoral College chooses the president, the commander-in-chief selects the Supreme Court justices, and originally, senators were selected by state legislatures. These constraints were designed to limit the direct participation of a large group of people in the political process, as the framers believed that too many ignorant, poor people would gain the right to vote.

The framers' views on democracy differ significantly from those of Americans today. Bruce Kuklick, a professor of American history, notes that the Constitution is written so that citizenship rights are very limited. He suggests that the framers worried about democracy and the potential for it to lead to the election of demagogues if everyone were allowed to participate.

Despite their concerns about direct democracy, the framers did include a process for changing or amending the Constitution, demonstrating their openness to change.

Protection of minority rights

The framers of the US Constitution were fundamentally skeptical of unmediated democracy and sought to protect individual rights and ensure effective governance. They believed that direct democracy could lead to chaos and instability, with historical examples of revolutions showing how majorities could be swayed by passion, potentially undermining individual rights and property.

To prevent the oppression of minority groups by the majority, the framers designed a mixed form of government, incorporating elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. This distribution of power across various institutions was intended to prevent any one group from gaining too much control. They also established a system of checks and balances, including an independent judiciary, to protect against the encroachment of minority rights.

The framers understood that political majorities may be tempted to enact laws that entrench their power at the expense of minority groups. They recognized that prejudice, hostility, and intolerance could lead governing majorities to disregard the legitimate needs and interests of political, religious, racial, and other minorities. To address these concerns, the framers intended for courts to play a central role in safeguarding minority rights.

The Bill of Rights, for instance, was passed to protect fundamental freedoms such as freedom of religion, speech, equal treatment, and due process of law. The courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have the responsibility to interpret the Constitution and ensure that these rights are upheld, even if a majority seeks to infringe upon them. This includes hearing the grievances voiced by minority groups and those holding minority opinions.

Additionally, the framers believed that elected representatives would be better equipped to make decisions serving the public good rather than impulsive decisions made by large groups. They designed a complex structure with checks and balances among federal branches, along with the delegation of limited powers to the federal government, to diffuse power and prevent the concentration of power in any one group, thus protecting minority rights.

Explore related products

America the Virtuous

$25.5 $140

Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence: Senator Rand Paul, Delegates of The Constitutional Convention

$2.99 $2.3

The Penguin Guide to the United States Constitution: A Fully Annotated Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution and Amendments, and Selections from The Federalist Papers

$12.89 $15

Election Law and Democratic Theory

$53.15 $62.95

The Federalist Papers (Dover Thrift Editions: American History)

$5.5

A Citizen's Guide to Impeachment (Activist Citizens Library)

$7.99 $9.99

Mixed government

The Framers of the US Constitution were among the wealthiest people in the colonies, and they expected this elite to continue guiding the young nation. They did not believe in a direct democracy, and the Constitution was written so that citizenship rights were very limited. The vote was thought to be reserved for people of wealth and education, with the common people, the poor and uneducated, participating indirectly through local government and town halls.

The Framers were concerned about the efficiency of ballot-counting and believed that the rights of the minority would be suppressed by the dominating majority. They saw to it that only one part of one branch of the federal government, the House of Representatives, was popularly elected by the people. The rest of the government was chosen by other means: the president by the Electoral College, the Supreme Court justices by the commander-in-chief, and senators by state legislatures.

The Framers' vision was to create a form of mixed government, combining elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. Mixed government, or a mixed constitution, is a form of government that combines different forms, with different people or groups in charge of making decisions and running the country. For example, some leaders might be elected by the people, while others might be born into their position. This type of government is different from a single ruler or group having all the power.

The idea of mixed government was popularized during classical antiquity to describe the stability, innovation, and success of the Roman Republic as a form of government developed under the Roman Constitution. Monarchy was embodied by the consuls, the aristocracy by the Senate, and democracy by the elections and great public gatherings of the assemblies. Each institution complements and also checks the others, guaranteeing stability and prosperity.

The Framers of the US Constitution based the idea of checks and balances, in part, upon the ancient theory of mixed government. The UK's constitution, with its Parliament composed of the Sovereign (monarchy), a House of Lords (aristocracy), and House of Commons (democracy), is a prime example of a mixed constitution.

Elective representation

The Founding Fathers of the United States, who were also the Framers of the Constitution, had a complex view of democracy. They were cautious about direct democracy, associating it with mob rule and the potential tyranny of the majority. They believed that direct democracy could lead to chaos and instability, and that impulsive decisions could be made by a large group.

Instead, the Framers favoured a system known as a republic, a form of representative democracy. They believed that elected representatives would be better equipped to make decisions serving the public good. They thought that representatives, possessing wisdom and expertise, could better discern the interests of the country.

Alexander Hamilton, for example, stated:

> [A] representative democracy, where the right of election is well secured and regulated & the exercise of the legislative, executive and judiciary authorities, is vested in select persons, chosen really and not nominally by the people, will in my opinion be most likely to be happy, regular and durable.

The Framers also believed that the common people, the poor and uneducated, could participate indirectly through local government, town halls and meetings, and through protest actions like boycotts.

The Framers designed a mixed form of government, incorporating elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. This meant that power would be distributed among various institutions to prevent any one group from gaining too much control.

Frequently asked questions