These organizational agencies represent the ideals of society, and enhance the Madisonian model of checks and balances.
Madison provides many examples of why we have a pluralist society in America, because the public interest is the sum of all group interests. We have pluralism to make sure that people's viewpoints are represented via factional groups that then transmit that viewpoint to the representatives in Congress and Senators. This gives a notion of the significance attained by bureaucratic interest factions in that seldom is a critical component of legislation advanced by Congress unaccompanied by consent from the organizational agency that was involved with the execution. Brandeis University's well known professor, Peter Woll, states that, "[Madison's] view that the natural diversity of interests would prevent particular groups from dominating politics found a later incarnation in American social science of the 1950s and 1960s" (Woll). The Madisonian system agrees to the social contract, and as Englishmen we must comply with the liberties and free speech of groups granted in our constitution. Rational political choice is exercised by individuals, but individuals are not political entities by themselves that possess the ability to influence government. Pluralism allows the actions of the government to be modular, and not follow one specific agenda too closely, unless agreed upon by the majority, following the Madisonian view of the separation of powers.
Pluralism of our bureaucratic structure is reflected by public organizational groups as well as private groups that attain entry to the policy-making procedures to a greater extent than would be the case in a less Madisonian government. However, pluralism can make it difficult to get legislation enacted because different political parties need to express their varied opinions and there may be intense disagreement. Peter Woll insightfully states in the lecture on Pendleton Herring that, "the federal administrative services do not constitute an overpowering monolithic entity but rather an uneven array of agencies, each with its own constituency of supporters and often facing its specialized critics"(Woll).