John Parillo Examines Federalist 60

In the last paper, Hamilton points out the issues that might result from giving the states complete control over elections. It was feared that an individual state, or a coalition of states, might decide not to hold federal elections and thus paralyze the new federal government. For this reason, the proposed constitution gives the federal government authority to intervene in that unique instance. He is clear that there is no authority for a nationalization of voting rules, nor for the removal of the authority of state legislators to select Senators. In this paper, Hamilton addresses the opposite question, why should the new federal government not regulate all elections?

The fear that was expressed by some was that states might “promote the election of some favorite class of men in exclusion of others, by confining the places of election to particular districts, and rendering it impracticable to the citizens at large to partake in the choice.”^[1] Hamilton dismisses the possibility of this happening on a large scale as “chimerical”. No state could decide to limit the ability of people to vote “without occasioning a popular revolution”. Beyond that though, the founders set up a diverse system for selecting those who serve in government.

Since the House of Representatives is selected directly by the people, the Senate is chosen by state legislators, and the President is selected by electors “chosen for that purpose by the people”, the only way to pervert the carefully designed balance of federal elections would be on the impossible chance that the very rules for selecting these representatives would be changed. Again, we see the brilliance of our founders in making election fraud nearly impossible by requiring different procedures for the selection of the three components responsible for the writing, and signing, of the laws under which we live.

By eliminating these differences, we have, of course, made election fraud easier to perpetrate, pushed the states out of the process, and fetishized democracy as if it is a good unto itself. In particular, the Senate being chosen by the state legislatures rather than popular vote, made it impervious to federal interference. Such interference would require the collusion of several states to reduce their own influence at the federal level. And finally, the current push for a national popular vote is the anthesis of the thinking of our founders because it eliminates the balance that the founders created between more and less densely populated states, as well as the fact that states themselves might have differing interests.

If the federal government were to favor one group of people over another, Hamilton asks, which group might it favor? Supposing the federal government were to interfere in the state’s authority to select Senators in favor of say the “wealthy and the well-born”, then that would be offset by the popular elections that are held in the House of Representatives. A more likely scenario would be that the federal government might favor something like “landed men and merchants”. Remember that Hamilton is writing primarily to the New York delegation. But that possibility would be thwarted by the popular vote in the House of more rural states. Because of all this, the only way to ensure that only the wealthy get elected would be “by prescribing qualifications of property either for those who may elect or be elected”. But the constitution that is proposed only allows for regulation of the “TIMES, the PLACES, the MANNER of elections” (emphasis in Hamilton’s writing, not in the Constitution) and ‘places’ has already been defined in the last paper as meaning either the general population for the House of Representatives, the state legislators in the case of Senators, or Electors in the case of the President.

The definition of the electorate is also fixed and is “unalterable by the legislature”, current efforts to change the rules for felons and non-citizens notwithstanding. As much as it might be tempting for the federal government to interfere in the state’s conduct of elections, the limitations against them doing so “are defined and fixed in the Constitution”.

But if the federal legislators should decide to move forward with changes to the state’s authority on elections, it would require “the aid of a military force sufficient to subdue the resistance of the great body of the people.” That is unlikely because of the “improbability of the existence of a force equal to that object”. Here again we see very clearly that the intent of the Second Amendment is ensuring that the population has sufficient means to make military interference in their freedom unlikely, because of the greater force of the population at large. Hamilton acknowledges that the possibility of such an insurrection by those in federal power is unlikely because the federal government would more likely “fear that citizens, not less tenacious than conscious of their rights, would flock from the remote extremes of their respective States to the places of election, to overthrow their tyrants, and to substitute men who would be disposed to avenge the violated majesty of the people”.

Indeed.

To read all of John Parillo’s work on the Federalist Papers, check here.

If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.

Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA

1. All quotes are from https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-51-60#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493432 ↑