He thought it was the government's duty to simultaneously protect the weaker groups and regulate the conflicting interests of all its peoples.
Madison stated that pure democracies will always have problems because of powerful factions that come along with that form of government. In an attempt to guard against the danger of these factions, Madison proposed the idea of a Republic Government, "a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect," for the people. To Madison, there are only two ways to control a faction: to remove its causes or to control its effects. The first would destroy the liberty the founding fathers of the Constitution were striving so hard to achieve. The second is neither possible nor practical. Obviously a Democratic government could do neither of these because it would be impossible to give every citizen the same opinions and interests and it would not be a Democratic government if you would take away the liberties of the people. I would have to agree with Madison when he claims that destroying liberty is a "cure worse then the disease itself." The government that the Constitution creates would be able to control the damage caused by factions without removing the liberties of its people.
The Constitution had established a representative government in which many voted and a few actually govern. This form of government is in direct contrast from a pure democracy in which all members of a society directly participate in making laws. This type of a pure democracy would never be able to control factions because the majority faction would always prevail, and there would be no way to protect minority rights. Madison hoped that the elected representatives would be the most knowledgeable and trust worthy men in the country. With a country of our size, the best man would surely win the election. But if by chance or situation, the men elected were part of a particular faction; the pure representatives would be able to contrast the rebel views of the bad.
