The significance of James Madison’s
contributions to creating our representative democracy cannot be overstated. He
saw the troubles of the first union as a member of the Congress of the
Confederation. He was a major player at the Constitutional Convention, and
wrote the Federalist Papers to get the new federal charter ratified.
Subsequently, Madison helped get the new government up and running by serving
in the House of Representatives in the First and Second Congresses. Later, he
twice was elected president.

So how did he think about elections to Congress, the first branch of government? To answer this question, I turned to my colleague Jay Cost. He is the Gerald R. Ford nonresident senior fellow at AEI and the author of the superb book, James Madison: America’s First Politician (2021).

Kosar:
I recall reading that when first campaigning for a position in the Virginia
legislature, Madison lost after he refused to provide free booze to voters. How
did he think about campaigning?

Cost: Madison was a delegate to
the 1776 Virginia convention, but lost reelection. His loss was a testament to
how yeoman farmers could wield influence over the gentry—it didn’t matter that
Madison was the son of the most prominent landowner in his county.

Madison disdained campaigning.
When he ran for Congress in 1789, his hope was not to campaign at all. He felt
that his reputation should be sufficient for voters either to accept or reject
him. He came home at the urging of friends (he had been in New York at the
Continental Congress). He and James Monroe (his opponent for Congress) actually
campaigned together. You can still find the landmark where they spoke at the
Hebron Lutheran Church in Madison, Virginia.

Your
book notes that Virginia powerbrokers gerrymandered Madison into an election
bid against James Monroe. What did he think about redistricting and, relatedly,
the size of the House of Representatives?

Madison’s congressional district
was drawn by Governor Patrick Henry’s allies to create a district unfavorable
to Madison. It included mostly counties that had voted for anti-Federalist
delegates to the 1788 ratifying convention. Not only did Henry draw Madison an
unfavorable district, he had a rule enacted that required members to live in
their districts (as opposed to the state, as per the Constitution). Yet,
Madison won.

Madison’s Federalist 55 defended the size of the House in the First Congress, but it was very different from today’s House. Today’s districts are an order of magnitude larger, and today’s partisan gerrymanderers can rely on detailed precinct data to design districts much more precisely than Henry ever could. I doubt Madison would like this very much. Like all the founders, he expected the House to grow as the population did—and indeed it did, until Congress capped the number of representatives at 435, in the early 20th century. One of his proposed amendments in the original Bill of Rights would have put a maximum of 50,000 people per congressional district. Today there is roughly one member for every 760,000—many more than Madison would have liked!

What
did Madison think a member of the House or Senate should do—act as a delegate
of his constituents or as a trustee representing their interests? And did he
think a member of the national legislature should advocate for local or national
objectives?

Madison embodied a hybrid model of
representation, sometimes referred to as the “politico” model. In it, members
vote with their constituents depending on salient issues where voter opinions
are strong. For example, he knew that his constituents (and generally speaking
the country at large) wanted a Bill of Rights. Even though he did not think a
Bill of Rights would do much good, he was its biggest advocate in the First
Congress. On the other hand, on issues like whether the president should have
removal authority over executive officers, he felt free to argue for what he
thought was the best position, as his constituents did not have strong opinions

We
often hear complaints about politicians cutting deals to get things done
instead of sticking up for principles. How did Madison deal with this dilemma?

Madison was a man of principle, no
doubt about it. But he was also a pragmatist. He believed in getting a deal
done, advancing his interests when and as he could. In fact, Madison might be
the inventor of the legislative logroll. In 1783 he proposed a series of
“baits” (as he called them) to the state governments if they adopted an import
tax with revenue dedicated to the Continental Congress. Above all, he wanted to
get that tax, as a way to strengthen Congress, but he was willing to
compromise. I think unlike a lot of members of Congress today, Madison was
actually in government to govern, and he understood that required bargaining.

Thank
you, Jay.

The post How Did James Madison Think About Congressional Elections? A Q&A with Jay Cost appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.