Every institution is a type of government. The quality of said government cannot avoid affecting society outside of the formal boundaries of the institution. The existence of every institution must be weighed against these effects.

The "owners" of an institution have a natural right to determine the nature (culture, products, etc) thereof. But they DO NOT have a natural right to the externalities these cause.

Every institution--i.e. local government--may be seen as a potential competitor to the sovereign (which is gov't of all gov'ts). Once institutions grow to a certain level of influence: this is TRANSPARENTLY so. E.g., content corporations, universities, and voting system vendors.

It is transparently obvious that content/curation corporations, universities, and voting system vendors PARTICIPATE in government--potentially in competition with the Sovereign.

What if 95% of election support in such an institution went to one party? Ordinarily, for a small institution with small externalities, this would be of no concern. But for institution that PARTICIPATES in governance, this is a huge concern.

The Sovereign is (supposedly) above partisanship, indeed above all other institutions, and--crucially--depends entirely upon this perception for its legitimacy. I.e., the Sovereign is not perceived as a "Dictator".

But the illusion (i.e., of impartiality) disappears if significant chunks of the Sovereign... coalition let's say... is biased 95% biased toward one particular party.

The Sovereign, for the protection of it's own legitimacy, would therefore not only be justified, but duty bound to cut off these institutions from the governance coalition.

/fin