Federalism, separation of powers, bicameralism, and the electoral system all contribute to the decentralization of power in the United States, which serves the model of pluralist democracy. Dividing political authority, however, carries risks that government may be unable to act at all or will act to serve the interests of organized minorities rather than the majority of the people. As noted earlier, the Framers of the Constitution were primarily concerned with dividing and checking government authority. Over time, certain institutional changes took place that they may not have anticipated, and which contributed to a greater centralization of governmental authority. Three such institutional changes deserve special notice:

(1) the presidency
The Framers of the Constitution devoted more than 2,200 words to the legislative branch in Article I. They describe the executive branch with barely 1,000 words in Article II. The presidency was viewed by many of the Framers as an administrative office needed to execute laws conceived and passed by Congress. Over time, however, the presidency became the central focus of American government. The president now defines national goals, proposes legislation to achieve those goals, sends Congress a budget to fund national legislation, and, of course, speaks for the nation in global affairs. Responding to national and international crises, presidents have—usually with the cooperation of Congress—expanded the powers of the office so that now it is the institution most attentive to national public opinion. In that sense, the presidency functions more in keeping with the majoritarian model of democracy.

(2) The Two-Party System
Political parties did not exist in 1787. In fact, the Constitution awarded the presidency to the candidate who won a majority of the electoral votes and the vice-presidency to the runner-up. Two party groups had formed in Congress by the election of 1796, and they backed opposing presidential candidates. The winner, John Adams (a Federalist), had to accept his opponent, Thomas Jefferson (a Democratic Republican), as his vice-president. A constitutional amendment in 1804 recognized the rise of parties by requiring that electors vote separately for president and vice-president, which led to party “tickets” for both offices. Moreover, the development of opposing parties in both houses of Congress encouraged coordination between the chambers. The party that claimed the president promoted coordination between the presidency and Congress. That only two parties have dominated American politics for most of its history also contributes to the centralization of power. American politics revolves around the Democratic and Republican parties, which serve alternatively in government and in opposition. Because minor parties wield very little power in the United States, the two-party system contributes to the centralization of authority.

(3) The Supreme Court
The Framers of the Constitution provided for a Supreme Court but did not have a clear vision of how it would function in their new government. Its description in Article III consists of fewer than 400 words and does not say much about the Court’s power. In 1803, the Court in a unanimous decision asserted the power of judicial review—the authority to review laws passed by Congress to determine whether they are in keeping with the U.S. Constitution. As a result of this decision, the Court’s status rose within the political system. It also gave the Court the last word about controversial governmental action. The court has contributed to the centralization of authority by acting as the final arbiter of decisions in a system of divided powers.

Conclusion
Because power is so decentralized among government institutions, the U.S. system can be said to fall short of the highest standard of majoritarian democracy. Because of the decentralization of power, however, the United States admirably fulfills the gold standard of pluralist democracy, which assumes multiple centers of power. The U.S. political system is open to competing groups seeking to be heard in the democratic process, and arguably yields policy outcomes that, over time, more effectively take the interests and concerns of different groups into account than do systems founded on the strict majoritarian principle. «±