When examining the arguments in defense of local sovereignty and those opposed it is important to also take a look at some of the empirical data in support the arguments. Early municipal reformers concentrated on removing politics from administration through limiting the power of political parties and even their elected officials while in the years to come there will be several changes made to municipalities, administration of the municipalities, and policy implementation with-in the municipalities.

The suggested causes for mismanagement of the localities by the New York Commissioners of 1876 are as follows, “1.Incompetent and unfaithful governing boards and officers. 2.The introduction of State and national politics into municipal affairs. 3.The assumption by the legislature of the direct control of local affairs.”(Bryce 609-611) He continues to mention, “As regards the two former causes, they are largely due to what is called the Spoils system, whereby office becomes the reward of party service, and the whole machinery of party government made to serve, as its main object, the getting and keeping of places.”(Bryce 613) As a solution to the problems concerning the mismanagement of growing cities the Commission of New York proposed the previous remedies or reforms in company with Bryce’s arguments. In support of his arguments Bryce gives empirical information that observed “the increase of population, valuation, taxation, and debt in fifteen of the largest cities in!

Madison’s argument that, the bigger the government is results in less entailment of factions is somewhat similar to that of James Bryce in The American Commonwealth. However Bryce goes into more depth in regards to the mismanagement of municipalities in particular the situation in New York along with several other cities. “The faults of the State governments are insignificant compared with the extravagance, corruption, and mismanagement which mark the administrations of most of the great cities. In New York they have revealed themselves on the largest scale.”(Bryce 608)

E.E. Schattschneider studied the area of political parties in more up to date history and as well defends the party system. Schattschneider’s principle argument is the ways in which parties “fill the gap”. By filling the gap he is recognizing the different interest that the upper- class and lower class have. More importantly he notes special interest groups look out the likelihood of the upper class for whereas the lower-class people do not have the same means as the upper class in taking care of their interest. He argues that within the party system lies the opposition and competition, which is conducive of democracy. “The idea that people are involved in politics by the contagion of conflict does not resemble the classical definition of democracy as” government by the people.” The difference between the idea of popular “involvement” in conflict and the idea that people actually “govern” is great enough to invite a re-examination of classical theory of democracy. Does !

Some topics in this essay:
American Government, EE Schattschneider, Continuing Madison, American History, Commonwealth Bryce, Seth Low, Bureaucratic Society, James Madison, York Commissioners, Commission York, political parties, citizen participation, democratic system, effects factions, policy implementation, form popular government, causes faction, idea people, local level, local sovereignty, policy-administration dichotomy, political scientist studied, local sovereignty opposed,