Is it democratic or undemocratic that smaller states can make big changes - Essay Example

Is it democratic or undemocratic that smaller s can make big changes? In the United s, there is a lot of concern regarding power inequality among different states. Small states enjoy the greatest stake of the senate with regard to issues of campaign finance, gun control and immigration. The constitution has always protected the smallest states for long, but the rising gap between the largest and the smallest states has worried different stakeholders greatly. The smaller states enjoy greater voting power and this lead to an argument on whether this is democratic or not.

This has led to various stakeholders including lawyers and the watchdog groups to facilitate changes to bridge this gap before it escalates further to high levels (Liptak par. 1-20).According to some scholars, the advantages given to these small states are a key part of the constitution, and that the stakeholders should not worry of this trend. On the other hand, some perceive this situation as a difficult case that cannot have an immediate solution. They see this as infringement of the voting power of citizens which significantly impacts on the democracy of the senate (Liptak par. 1-20). The substantial population differences between large and small states are a key cause for demographic gap that leads to a wide variance in the political power.

The issue of the filibuster in the senate also threatens democracy according to some scientists. This gives the senators in these small states to magnify their power using the filibuster greater than the senators of large states.Since the small states senators form the majority in the senate, they have the tendency of blocking or shaping the legislation passed in the senate. This ends up bringing benefits to the conservatives contrary to the liberals. Some critical bills in the senate like the carbon emission, immigration and campaign spending, suffer rejection due to the number of a small state senators.

The federal state role in injecting funds to the small states has done a lot to assist those residents in these states. This has made these states enjoy more political power that other states contrary to the constitution that stipulates equal political voice irrespective of the population (Liptak par. 1-20).Some scholars still insist that it is democratic for these small states to enjoy these privileges so as to prevent them from sidelining by the majority. They emphasize that, without an appropriate strategy, to protect the minority states, all the wealth will end up in the prosperous states.

Another argues that urban areas already have key facilities like universities and government agencies. This will enhance centralization further sidelining the small states (Liptak par. 1-20).No one expects the benefits accruing to the small states to be lost, but the growing disparities with the large states have raised an alarm to the senators in the big states. According to the Constitution, all citizens have equal power and should be represented equally in the senate. It is undemocratic for the smaller states to have more voting power than others.

The fundamental units of the constitution will continue to offer benefits to the smaller states unless the bigger states challenge this (Liptak par. 1-20).Works CitedLiptak, Adam. Smaller States Find Outsize Clout Growing in Senate, 2013. Web. 6 April 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/11/us/politics/democracy-tested.html?_r=0