Several studies have established that small states are more likely than large states to be democratic. However,
the belief that smallness is a virtue when and if a democratic form of government is desired has not gone unchallenged.
Already in The Federalist Paper, the view was given that small democracies can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of
faction and are therefore especially vulnerable to the risk of the tyranny of the majority. The core of this argument, then, is
that smallness, even if democratic, is likely to be dominated by the few. Investigating while noting that dominance may
mean different things in varying institutional settings patterns of dominance since the early 1970s in the microstates of the
world, this essay attempts to bring in a verdict in this controversy. The findings are that small polities are indeed not as a
rule tyrannized by majorities. Within the small polity universe, there is much variation in terms of dominance, and in this
framework of variation, non-dominance clearly outweighs dominance: of 73 time periods during which state
performances are observed, 42 are in a category of non-dominance. Much of this variation may be explained by
democracy variation. Democratic countries display non-dominance in the great majority of cases; in contrast, nondemocracy
links predominantly to dominance.