Princeton Concludes What Kind of Government America Really Has, and It's Not a Democracy

[VCheng]

How is that when they dont even choose the representative who is going to govern them!

They also have no say in the pentagon where all important decisions happen! so basically not a democracy...yes the system is modified and has its plus but why turn a blind eye at the obvious?!

But they do. The Constitution requires each State legislature to determine how electors in the Electoral College for the state are to be chosen, so the people have the say. Always.

And very effectively too, I might add.

 

[Dubious]

But they do. The Constitution requires each State legislature to determine how electors in the Electoral College for the state are to be chosen, so the people have the say. Always.

And very effectively too, I might add.

So Princeton is lying? and then the press goes to lie to? Funny the article was on my fb wall posted by my American friend... hmmm I wonder why your say is soo different from all the others who thanked his post and agreed with the article!

 

[VCheng]

So Princeton is lying? and then the press goes to lie to? Funny the article was on my fb wall posted by my American friend... hmmm I wonder why your say is soo different from all the others who thanked his post and agreed with the article!

What you are trying to contort the Princeton study into what it is not, is the discussion. I have no problem with the study itself.

 

[Dubious]

What you are trying to contort the Princeton study into what it is not, is the discussion. I have no problem with the study itself.

You dont? The study was about Democracy and how America is not that...

Interesting article, but it totally ignores the very powerful influences of local governments that are led by the people and that directly affect their communities. Democracy works much better bottom up rather than top down.

Actually, the real power resides in, and comes from, the people. The people at the top are merely temporary custodians of it.

 

[VCheng]

You dont? The study was about Democracy and how America is not that...

No, the study was a multivariate statistical analysis:

"A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. This paper reports on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues."

To convert that into something else is gross and unsupported overreach.

 

[Developereo]

Then again in today's world there really isnt any true democracy!

It's not so much that the oligarchy controls the process, but it's more that people who can organize themselves at a national level have more influence. The rich and powerful have the resources to coordinate national campaigns and to "influence" politicians, but other groups can also do it. It's just harder if you don't have money.

The quintessential example is the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons). It's not that old people are rich, but they are organized and they vote: old people are far more likely to vote than young people are. Therefore, the AARP lobby is powerful -- some say it is the most powerful lobby in Washington, even more powerful than NRA and AIPAC -- and politicians listen to their concerns. That's why social security and entitlements are such a third rail in American politics: no politician in his right mind will mess with the AARP.

 

[Dubious]

No, the study was a multivariate statistical analysis:

"A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. This paper reports on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues."

To convert that into something else is gross and unsupported overreach.

No one converted that to something else...but your continuous .... of America not being democratic did so...

It's not so much that the oligarchy controls the process, but it's more that people who can organize themselves at a national level have more influence. The rich and powerful have the resources to coordinate national campaigns and to "influence" politicians, but other groups can also do it. It's just harder if you don't have money.

The quintessential example is the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons). It's not that old people are rich, but they are organized and they vote: old people are far more likely to vote than young people are. Therefore, the AARP lobby is powerful -- some say it is the most powerful lobby in Washington, even more powerful than NRA and AIPAC -- and politicians listen to their concerns. That's why social security and entitlements are such a third rail in American politics: no politician in his right mind will mess with the AARP.

I am not aware of all this....thanks

But yes, when you have money and mostly people who have excess of wealth do form all these influential organization at national level and hece the term oligarchy...a certain set of rich!

 

[VCheng]

But yes, when you have money and mostly people who have excess of wealth do form all these influential organization at national level and hece the term oligarchy...a certain set of rich!

Pardon me, but your preconceived biases are showing up again!

American democracy is alive and well, and delivers for its people.

 

[Dubious]

Pardon me, but your preconceived biases are showing up again!

American democracy is alive and well, and delivers for its people.

If you say so...Princeton just wasted money on a research...they could have donated to the poor

 

[VCheng]

If you say so...Princeton just wasted money on a research...they could have donated to the poor

No, they created one statistical model and ran 1,779 variables through it. Nice paper. Their job is to think and work, not donate, and they are doing it very well too.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

@[COLOR=#000000]Talon[/COLOR]

You might find this documentary interesting. It deals with the circumstances that led to the birth of democracy, & how it functioned at that early stage. Athenian democracy is essentially "direct democracy", whereas modern day democratic nations are "representative democracies" that have been inspired by ancient Rome. Both systems have their own set of advantages & drawbacks alongside those that they share in common. Personally, I am not too fond of democracy for our country because all of its flaws in their worst possible form are visible there. However, it's necessary to study the environment of its birth to understand the problems it attempted to resolve in spite of its introduction of a new set of issues. Among the most obvious ones is the possibility of detrimental influence caused by the rich elites that has been brought up in the article you posted.

 

[gambit]

So its not a democracy...because such represents should have their say ...if they dont like something why forced to vote for it?

You are not making sense and it looks like because you have a distorted context of democracy.

If I elect you into Congress (or Parliament), I gave you my vote because you convinced me that you would support A, B, and C when in government.

Democracy checked: I gave you my vote.

But once you are in Congress (or Parliament), instead of supporting issues A, B, and C as you promised, you changed your mind and support issues X, Y, and Z. So after your term is done, I and the rest of our district voted you out and voted someone else in who would support issues A, B, and C.

Democracy checked again: We voted you out and voted someone else in.

So how in the world can you say that voting you out of office is 'not a democracy' ? Looks to me you are used to the severe abuse or power and corruption that is common in dictatorships so now you are trying to impute those characteristics into our system.

No...We are not perfect and neither is our democracy, but B41 was voted out after one term, then Clinton got voted in twice, then B43 received the same treatment, and now we have a black President who got voted in twice. We see a sway between Republican and Democrat over nearly 30 yrs., 1989 with B41 to 2014 with Obama. Unlike the dictatorships you are used to, no violence occurred and the military took no side.

The Princeton article revealed nothing. In every society, there will always be an elite class, whether that class wields its influence with money or bullets is what bothered you because the dictatorships you are used to, bullets are the currency and method of oligarchs.

 

[gambit]

If you say so...Princeton just wasted money on a research...they could have donated to the poor

Yes...They did. But then, what is 'waste' is subjective. If you are trying to bring down your own country and you cannot do it through intellectually honest or violent means, distortions of what the country is by intellectually dishonest means would not be considered wasteful. It is the long term you should look at.

 

[Developereo]

Princeton just wasted money on a research...

Princeton highlighted a reality which many people don't like to acknowledge. Direct, Athenian, democracy simply doesn't scale beyond a certain level. That's why most countries have representational republics but, even there, influence will always be proportional to one's wealth and power. Everyone simply is not created equal.

This inequality manifests itself in many ways.

Organizing a special interest lobby takes time and resources, and rich people have more of both compared to poor people. Of course poor people can also organize themselves -- there are teachers' lobbies and government workers' lobbies -- but it takes lots of poor people to match the influence of fewer rich people. On a per-head basis, a rich person has more influence than does a poor person.

Also, poor people's votes can be bought, directly or indirectly, by the rich.

There is also a fine line between bribery of politicians, which is illegal, and political contributions, which are considered a form of free speech and a cornerstone of democracy. There can't be a direct contract (which would be bribery), but the unspoken quid pro quo underlying political contributions is understood by both parties. You are helping a candidate get elected and, in return, you expect them to be responsive to your concerns.

The influence of money in the American political process is a subject of heated debate.

One final complication is that issues are prioritized by voters. So, a voter may have certain views on the issue of immigration (A), environment (B), gun control (C), and economy (D). But it is unlikely that there will be a candidate who has the exact same policy proposals on all these issues that match the voter's views. So the voter has to prioritize and vote for a candidate because of agreement on issue (D), even though their views on issue (C) may diverge. So, when Princeton says that issue (C) is not being represented, that's only because it wasn't a priority for enough voters compared to other issues.

 

[gambit]

The influence of money in the American political process is a subject of heated debate.

Simple question: Which is preferable, money or bullets ?

People who criticizes American politics so often came from or living in countries where the influence of bullets is the norm and usually run away from that question. Wonder why ?