Headline June 03, 2018/ ''' GOVERNING *GREAT AMERICA'S* GOVERNANCE '''

''' GOVERNING 

*GREAT AMERICA'S* GOVERNANCE '''

'SOME MONTHS - JUST a few months ago the Pew Research Center released a poll showing that  Americans are losing faith in their system of government.

Only one-fifth of adults surveyed believe democracy is ''working well'' in the United States, while  two-thirds say the ''significant changes'' are needed to governmental ''design and structures''.

The 2016 election is one explanation for these findings. Something is not right in a country where  Donald Trump is able to win the presidency.

But here's another possibility : what if trust American democracy is eroding because the nation is has become too big to be effectively governed through traditional means?

With a population of more than 325 million and an enormously complex society, perhaps this country has passed a point where - no matter whom we elect - it risks becoming permanently dissatisfied with legislative and governmental performance.

Political thinkers, worried about the problem of size, have long advocated small republics. Plato and Aristotle admired the city-state because thought reason and virtue could prevail only when polis was small enough that citizens could be acquaintances.

Montesquieu, the 18th-century French political thinker, picked up where the ancient Greeks left off, arguing for the benefits of small territories.

''In a large republic,'' he wrote ''the common good is is sacrificed to thousand considerations,'' where in a smaller one the common good ''is more strongly felt, better known, and closer to each citizen.''

The framers of the United States Constitution were keenly aware of these arguments. As the political scientist Robert Dahl and Edward Tufte noted in their 1973 book : ''Size and Democracy,'' the framers embraced federalism partly because they thought that states were closer to in scale to the classical ideal.

Ultimately, however, a counterargument advanced by James Madison won the day:

Larger republics better protected democracy, he claimed, because their natural political diversity made it difficult for any supersized faction to form and dominate.

Two and half centuries later, the accumulated social science suggests that Madison's optimism was misplaced. Smaller it seems, is better.

There are clear economic and military advantages to being a large country. But when it comes to democracy, the benefits of largeness - defined by population or geographic area - are hard to find.

Examining data on the world's nations from the 19th century until today, the political scientist John Gerring and Wouter Veenendaal recently discovered that although the size is correlated with electoral competition {in line with the Maddisonnian argument} -

There is no association between size and and many other standard measures of democratic functioning, such as limits on executive power or the provision of human rights.

In fact, large nations turn out to have what the political scientist Pippa Norris has called ''democratic deficits'' :

They don't fully satisfy their citizens' demands for democracy. for one thing, citizens of large nations are generally less involved in politics and feel they have less of a voice.

*Voter turn out is lower*.

The Honor and Serving of the latest Global Operational Research  on large countries and governance continues. The World Students Society thanks Professor Neil Gross. professor of sociology at Colby College.

With respectful dedication to the Great People of America,  Leaders, Students, Professors and Teachers, and then the world.

See Ya all ''register'' on wssciw.blogspot.com - The World Students Society, for every subject in the world and Twitter - !E-WOW! - the Ecosystem 2011:

''' Governing & Opinions '''

Good Night and God Bless

SAM Daily Times - the Voice of the Voiceless