The electorate of the people, Tocqueville and Mill
             The election of officials is a sticky situation. In a democracy the people rule and elect the officials that they want. But what happens when they start choosing unqualified persons and the quality of the ruling becomes poor? Or what happens when the majority rules over the minority, disallowing the minority to have any say in government? Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill both have suggestions to assuage the problem. In this paper I will approach Tocqueville's comparison of the US houses in congress, in favor of the senate's two part election; And Mill's large district election. In conclusion I will support Mill because his proportionate representation and weighted voting solve the problems of better qualified officials and electors, and supporting every person even minorities.
             In the time of Jacksonian Democracy, in which Tocqueville did his research, the mass electorate had taken hold and everyman could rise through the ranks of elected positions in government. With some complaint Tocqueville states, "In Europe many people either believe without saying or say with out believing that one of the great advantages of universal suffrage is to summon men worthy of public confidence to the direction of affairs." Further, believing that the people who don't really know how to rule have an instinct that tells them who would be the best ruler and always have a "sincere desire to the good of the state." However, though this was the thought in Europe and America at the time, Tocqueville felt bound to disagree with this assessment.
             "When I arrived in the United States I discovered with astonishment that good qualities were common among the governed but rare among the rulers. In our day it is a constant fact that the most outstanding Americans are seldom summoned to public office, and it must be recognized that this tendency has increased ...