We can bolster our democracy by reinvigorating federalism-related principles that have largely eroded over the past century.  The Framers structured the Constitution to delegate only certain limited powers to the federal government.  Over the past century, the Supreme Court has interpreted certain constitutional provisions as granting the federal government virtually plenary authority over almost every area of modern life.  As a result, crucial policies and funding decisions are often determined by Congress and federal bureaucrats, rather than states or localities.

Citizens are much more likely to feel disconnected from the democratic process when most important decisions are made at the national level.  Trying to meaningfully influence federal policy can easily be seen as an unrealistic endeavor.  Most Americans will never travel to Washington D.C. or meet an elected federal official.  While constituents can readily call, write, or e-mail their congressional representatives, they may feel their communications are easily lost among the hundreds of other missives Members receive each day and seldom trigger any response beyond a letter drafted by a staffer.  Rather than participating directly in the lawmaking process, most people must have their views intermediated, if at all, through mass movements and interest groups. 

Even when a person persuades a Representative or Senator of the merits of an idea, it will likely go nowhere unless that official happens to sit on a relevant committee.  More broadly, a policy proposal will seldom be seriously considered without the backing of a national coalition to force the issue onto the national agenda.  It is usually much harder to generate consensus on an issue across the nation than within a particular state or locality.  Many of the most powerful influences on the federal legislative process are well-funded, highly ideological national groups whose policy preferences and priorities often bear little resemblance to ordinary Americans’ more pragmatic views.  And the lengthy legislative process, involving byzantine rules and well over a dozen vetogates, can stymie even bills with widespread support.

In most cases, a voter also has far less of a voice in federal elections than in races for other offices.  The typical congressional district has about 761,000 people.  Each voter’s share of the power to elect a representative is minuscule; a modern congressional district has more people than did the most populous state—Virginia—during the Founding Era.  Most districts are heavily lopsided toward one political party, making the outcome of general elections virtually preordained.  Even in competitive races, however, with rare exceptions, a “close” election means the winner prevailed by a margin of several thousand votes.  These factors are only exacerbated for most Senate seats.  Ironically, among all of the important reasons why a person may choose to vote in a federal election, actually impacting the race’s outcome is perhaps the least likely to be realized.

Federalism offers a partial solution to these problems.  Enforcing constitutional limits on the scope of federal power ensures that many important decisions will be made by officials at lower, more accessible levels of government.  In most cases, districts for state, county, and local legislators will be much smaller than for federal office, affording each voter a greater chance to affect an election’s outcome.  Citizens can more readily participate in the policymaking process—often by testifying directly to legislators during the public comment section of public meetings or hearings. State and local legislators are often more personally accessible than federal Representatives and Senators.  Additionally, the lawmaking process is usually relatively simpler at more local levels of government.  A person does not face the prospect of having their policy preferences defeated by voters on the other side of the country with substantially different interests, values, and expectations.

Perhaps most importantly, a decentralized approach generally allows more people’s preferences to be satisfied.  When a single nationwide majority resolves an issue on a uniform national basis, the will of tens of millions of voters can be overridden.  In contrast, when each state, or even each county, is free to resolve an issue for itself, a diversity of approaches—responsive to the preferences of smaller groups of people—can be adopted.  The “will of the people” is a more meaningful concept when the will of more people is satisfied, rather than allowing a single national majority to control.

In short, one of the biggest challenges facing our democracy is the enormous scope of its growth.  During the Founding Era, when four million people lived in colonies along the Atlantic coast, the Framers questioned whether a national Republic could succeed.  Their concerns apply with even greater force today in a continent-wide nation of over 330 million people.  The principles animating federalism counsel, among other things, that policy decisions should be devolved to the lowest unit of government reasonably possible; higher levels of government should not legislate in fields for which others are responsible.