The New Jersey Plan was one of two plans put forward at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The other was the Virginia plan. The Virginia plan called for two houses of Congress, both elected with proportional representation. This plan would place the majority of influence in the hands of the more populated states. The New Jersey Plan was an attempt by the smaller states to counter this proposal. It argued that representation should be left how it had been under the Articles of Confederation—namely that each state, regardless of size, get an equal share of representation. The controversy was eventually solved by the Great Compromise, which created a bicameral legislature. The upper house was to follow the New Jersey Plan, the lower house the Virginia Plan. 

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was convened originally with the intention of amending the decidedly unworkable Articles of Confederation. Several incidents since the break with Britain had demonstrated that the Articles were too loose and weak of a governing body to adequately manage the affairs of a young, large and growing nation. Many politicians, most notably James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, argued for the abandonment of the Articles of Confederation and the creation of a new government and constitution.

Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay wrote a series of eighty-five articles arguing in favor of ratification of the Constitution. All three wished to remain anonymous, writing under the pseudonym Publius, but the identities were discovered after their deaths. The collection of their work is called The Federalist Papers. 

The Virginia Plan was written by James Madison, a Virginia farmowner himself. In it, a lot of the legislative power was give to the southern, farming states. This was done through population based apportionment, the southern states where larger both in size and population, so they would very easily control Congress.

In response, William Patterson penned the New Jersey Plan, in which each state got a single vote in Congress.

These plans were resolved by the Great Compromise penned by Roger Sherman. The Great Compromise, or Connecticut Plan, called for a bicameral legislature with a population based House of Representatives, and a Senate in which each state had equal representation.

It must first be stated that it is hard to generalize about the opinions of the framers, however almost exclusively they believed that the existence of political parties would be detrimental to the growth of freedom and liberty in the Union. George Washington spoke out against political parties when he stepped down from power; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison wrote extensively against political parties in The Federalist Papers.

The framers generally felt that the common man was unprepared for ultimate control of government, so they allowed for a group of electors to dilute the democratic process. In addition, whilst many framers abhorred the immorality of slavery, many others were slave holders themselves and actively sought to protect the institution, at least for the remainder of their lifetimes. Finally, the framers believed that no single branch (executive, legislative or judicial) should have complete control over the government and sought to institute a system of checks and balances to prevent this.

Parliament’s insistence that virtual representation was sufficient to adequately represent the interests of the colonists in British policy making was a major ideological problem for the colonies. Virtual representation rested on the theory that since Parliament protected the interests of all British citizens and subjects, it was not necessary for colonists to directly elect representatives. Colonists, on the other hand, believed that such a policy meant their interests were second to those of the actual electorate and, in the years leading up to revolution, demanded fair and equal representation.

In order to answer this question, you must have remembered the meaning of virtual representation—the belief held by Grenville and others in the British political elite that the members of parliament accurately represented all citizens of the Empire, regardless of their actual physical representation (or lack thereof). This, of course, was one of the biggest matters of disagreement in between the Brits and colonists: the colonists disagreed with the so-called virtual representation—the colonists believed that the only fair representation would be actual, physical, representation in Parliament (hence “no taxation without representation”). 

This question requires relatively little explanation, given that the answers are all explanations. That said, one of the answers—fear of diminished state power—may require some explanation. Some of the more entrenched and powerful state governors stood to lose much power if the Constitution was ratified. Do you understand why?

Answer: The individual states, and thus the heads of state (i.e. governors), gave up the nearly-unlimited power under the Articles of Confederation for the unity and protection of the Constitution.