The BBC is featuring a piece about a report by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page on the influence citizens of the U.S. have on policy, based on income level.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

 

In this report, the professors looked at answers to survey questions between 1981 and 2002 and broke down the answers according to income level. Then they looked at which income level had the most influence on policy decisions.

 

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf

 

Abstract:

 

"Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics – which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic Elite Domination, and two types of interest group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism – offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.

 

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.

 

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism."

 

They conclude that the system as is strongly favours the economical elite compared to the average citizen, and that while citizens of the U.S. "do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise [...] if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."

 

 

Posted a link to the paper a few days back in the Ukraine thread. As I said the paper paints a pretty picture, looking forward to it being finished.

The BBC is featuring a piece about a report by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page on the influence citizens of the U.S. have on policy, based on income level.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

 

In this report, the professors looked at answers to survey questions between 1981 and 2002 and broke down the answers according to income level. Then they looked at which income level had the most influence on policy decisions.

 

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf

 

Abstract:

 

"Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics – which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic Elite Domination, and two types of interest group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism – offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.

 

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.

 

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism."

 

They conclude that the system as is strongly favours the economical elite compared to the average citizen, and that while citizens of the U.S. "do enjoy many features central to democrat governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise [...] if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."

 

I thought we already knew that lobbyists have influence on certain government decisions, also if you don't agree with the ideas of any political party  you can just spoil your vote or not vote at all? I don't really see how the influence of big business on politics means a country can't say its not a Democracy ?

I thought we already knew that lobbyists have influence on certain government decisions, also if you don't agree with the ideas of any political party  you can just spoil your vote or not vote at all? I don't really see how the influence of big business on politics means a country can't say its not a Democracy ?

 

 

Agreed. Although this does lend credence to the federalist argument that power is best left concentrated at the lowest possible levels because the voters have more influence there.

You can't affect lobyism or campaign finance by voting since basically everybody is dirty.  Instead they have simply become examples of what is wrong with the system and the futility of trying to do something about it. 

Well it does say it is threatened by the system being bent by money (hard to find one that isn't, I suppose) rather than it not being one. People only have a say every couple of years after all, all they do is control which people end up rather than the 'end' of decisions being made and so on.

You can't affect lobyism or campaign finance by voting since basically everybody is dirty.  Instead they have simply become examples of what is wrong with the system and the futility of trying to do something about it. 

  Gorgon were you born cynical or did you have to work at it?

 

All kidding aside you are pretty right on. In the end voting really becomes a choice of lesser evils. You vote for the pols you think will hurt you the least.

I have to agree, over time any democracy with a long standing system of governance will become far less about safeguarding and serving the people and far more about safeguarding its own continuity and the people who fund and back it. Rebellion and revolution as an answer? I think that's a short term solution to the problem, as once again the same problems will arise. Investigative journalism and constant scrutiny? Hard to monitor, and who watches the watchmen, as when the media becomes so immersed in the political world the two become somewhat symbiotic.

 

A most puzzling conundrum.

I would like another study to be made, regarding the possibility of culture influencing democratic deficits. U.S. has a fairly unique culture compared to the rest of the West.

I have to agree, over time any democracy with a long standing system of governance will become far less about safeguarding and serving the people and far more about safeguarding its own continuity and the people who fund and back it. Rebellion and revolution as an answer? I think that's a short term solution to the problem, as once again the same problems will arise. Investigative journalism and constant scrutiny? Hard to monitor, and who watches the watchmen, as when the media becomes so immersed in the political world the two become somewhat symbiotic.

 

A most puzzling conundrum.

We live in an age where technology allows us to spy on anyone anytime, I don't see why it would be difficult to have one organization directed at major corporations. Technically there should be one but they thread as if stepping on a glass floor.

 

I have to agree, over time any democracy with a long standing system of governance will become far less about safeguarding and serving the people and far more about safeguarding its own continuity and the people who fund and back it. Rebellion and revolution as an answer? I think that's a short term solution to the problem, as once again the same problems will arise. Investigative journalism and constant scrutiny? Hard to monitor, and who watches the watchmen, as when the media becomes so immersed in the political world the two become somewhat symbiotic.

 

A most puzzling conundrum.

We live in an age where technology allows us to spy on anyone anytime, I don't see why it would be difficult to have one organization directed at major corporations. Technically there should be one but they thread as if stepping on a glass floor.

 

 

I thought you didn't support big brother watching as its an erosion of our privacy?

Just to add a bit of a positive spin, the average citizen still has a lot of different ways to exert their influence on the US.  Voting is one aspect, but corporations cannot afford to simply ignore the middle and lower classes.  They still have to at least create the illusion that they are looking out for the best interests of the common people.  

 

Why do oil companies bother investing in alternative energy?  Why does change.org ever manage to change anything?  Why do civil rights continue to progress?  Public pressure is still a very effective tool in this country. 

Sadly, not so much a surpise.

 

What doesn't help the US democracy either is that, unlike most democracies, you have 2 parties to choose on.

So, what'll be? A... or B?

If you dislike A... you got a whole bunch of options.

 

And what if you dislike A, but think B is a bunch of gun-happy warmongering rednecks... well, there goes your choice to choose a government.

Good thing the U.S. isn't and hasn't ever been a democracy, but is a representative republic. The writers of the paper got it right, but the BBC, as per usual, didn't.

 

This isn't really news to anyone who can critically think for themselves and even half way pays attention to what goes on here over a length of time. I suppose a study from some official source will help serve to wake up some zombies to this though. Kudos to Gilen and Page for that.

Sadly, not so much a surpise.

 

What doesn't help the US democracy either is that, unlike most democracies, you have 2 parties to choose on.

So, what'll be? A... or B?

If you dislike A... you got a whole bunch of options.

 

And what if you dislike A, but think B is a bunch of gun-happy warmongering rednecks... well, there goes your choice to choose a government.

 

I don't think it's even that. When the republicans do something that is recognized as a bad idea and dirties their image, they switch out for democrats, who will essentially do everything that matters the same and once they **** up well people have already forgotten what the republicans did so it time to pick them again.. It is such a farce, but hey while gays get married and pot becomes legal everyone is happy, because that is all that matters. That is why I think that democracy is essentially a flawed system, people on average are stupid and it's oh so easy to pull wool over their eyes.

Sadly, not so much a surpise.

 

What doesn't help the US democracy either is that, unlike most democracies, you have 2 parties to choose on.

So, what'll be? A... or B?

If you dislike A... you got a whole bunch of options.

 

And what if you dislike A, but think B is a bunch of gun-happy warmongering rednecks... well, there goes your choice to choose a government.

 

While I agree with you for the most part, it is important to note that within those parties you have a pretty diverse group of politicians.  John McCain doesn't really have much in common with your tea party candidates for example, and in California our Democratic governor is more of a fiscal conservative than quite a few Republicans.

@ Sarex; Yup... we've had a large bunch of failed governments here who didn't sit out their time. Everyone pretty much hates the current government (according to polls they will get about 25% of their current votes next election), so next time, we'll vote on other parties. And then later again on these, and it just keeps turning and turning, and in the end nothing changes much. Things executed get turned back, things discarded back on the vote... and this in an about 8 year cycle. :/

 

 

I have to agree, over time any democracy with a long standing system of governance will become far less about safeguarding and serving the people and far more about safeguarding its own continuity and the people who fund and back it. Rebellion and revolution as an answer? I think that's a short term solution to the problem, as once again the same problems will arise. Investigative journalism and constant scrutiny? Hard to monitor, and who watches the watchmen, as when the media becomes so immersed in the political world the two become somewhat symbiotic.

 

A most puzzling conundrum.

We live in an age where technology allows us to spy on anyone anytime, I don't see why it would be difficult to have one organization directed at major corporations. Technically there should be one but they thread as if stepping on a glass floor.

 

 

I thought you didn't support big brother watching as its an erosion of our privacy?

 

The privacy of citizens as is in the constitution not of private corporate entities.

Of course there is also the problem of said agency becoming corrupt and using information to influence the market.

@ Sarex; Yup... we've had a large bunch of failed governments here who didn't sit out their time. Everyone pretty much hates the current government (according to polls they will get about 25% of their current votes next election), so next time, we'll vote on other parties. And then later again on these, and it just keeps turning and turning, and in the end nothing changes much. Things executed get turned back, things discarded back on the vote... and this in an about 8 year cycle. :/

 

Hmm. Sounds exactly like the government in my country.

The government controls so much money it's inevitable it becomes corrupt. But that's what happens when the voters want the government to do everything for them. We get the government that we deserve. There is a movement for a new constitutional convention btw, to try to fix some of these problems.

*blinks* Wow that article is retarded. First of all, we are not a democracy, we are a republic with a democratic format of choosing various government representatives. Secondly, most of the actual policy making at this point because of the massive expansion in government power with the threats to SCOTUS over the commerce clause during that jackbooted thug FDR's presidency is in the hands of pretty unconstrained 'executive branch' government departments. 

Democracy is incompatible with financial oligarchy?

 

Who'd have thunk it?

Call Roosevelt a Nazi again and I will gesticulate wildly at your ignorance. 

I thought we already knew that lobbyists have influence on certain government decisions, also if you don't agree with the ideas of any political party  you can just spoil your vote or not vote at all? I don't really see how the influence of big business on politics means a country can't say its not a Democracy ?

Policy making being heavily influence by a small minority of the wealthy class is not a democracy, that's an oligarchy.

 

Lobbyists do not claim that they make policy - at least the clear-headed ones don't. They claim that they represent the interests of larger organizations and, more importantly, are aware of the intricacies that a policy maker might not be aware of. Nobody really says that they have an undue influence on policy making.

 

As for the study, it's one thing for people to make claims that the US isn't truly democratic and another to actually show it with evidence. The importance of the study is that it does try to show this via evidence.

*blinks* Wow that article is retarded. First of all, we are not a democracy, we are a republic with a democratic format of choosing various government representatives. Secondly, most of the actual policy making at this point because of the massive expansion in government power with the threats to SCOTUS over the commerce clause during that jackbooted thug FDR's presidency is in the hands of pretty unconstrained 'executive branch' government departments.

 

Neither the executive nor the judicial branches of the government are policy-makers. If you remember from civics in 7th grade that is the purview of the bicameral legislative branch. That would be the senators and the representatives. Neither the scotus nor the president make legislation, regardless of the commerce law. Anyone can present a law including the president, but the legislative branch has to actually vote it in. The scotus, being a part of the judicial branch only determines if a law is being upheld correctly or not. The scotus specifically, can determine what a law really means or if it is constitutional.

Edited April 19, 201411 yr by Hormalakh