The rich own our democracy, new evidence suggests

[Triana]

(I know - DUH, right?). I dislike the title but used it in the OP because that's the title on the article. But it makes no sense because if the rich "own our democracy" -- then it's NOT a Democracy! We hardly need a study to know that the US is officially a oligarchy at best, a fascist state at worst. But, it's nice to be able to bookmark and cite the data and charts for the merely ignorant -- and to rub in the faces of the willfully fact-averse nincompoop CONs out there.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Two new studies by political scientists offer compelling evidence that the rich use their wealth to control the political system and that the U.S. is a democratic republic in name only.

In a study of Senate voting patterns, Michael Jay Barber found that “senators’ preferences reflect the preferences of the average donor better than any other group.” In a similar study of the House of Representatives, Jesse H. Rhodes and Brian F. Schaffner found that, “millionaires receive about twice as much representation when they comprise about 5 percent of the district’s population than the poorest wealth group does when it makes up 50 percent of the district.” In fact, the increasing influence of the rich over Congress is the leading driver of polarization in modern politics, with the rich using the political system to entrench wealth by pushing for tax breaks and blocking redistributive policies.

. . .

Barber’s study is the first to directly examine the policy preferences of the donor class. Barber sent 20,500 letters to people who contributed to 22 Senate elections in 2012 and asked about various policy questions. This allowed Barber to examine the differences in representation between donors and non-donors. His finding: Donors’ preferences tend to be far better represented than non-donors’. The chart below measures the ideological differences between various groups, with 0 indicating a perfect fit. The data show that Senators are almost perfectly aligned with their donors, but rather distant from voters.

In fact, politicians are almost perfectly aligned with donors, but less aligned with partisans (people who voted for the Senator and share party affiliation), supporters (people who voted for the Senator) and voters in general. He Barber also finds that donors tend to be far more extreme in their views (see chart below). For instance, while about sixty percent of non-donor Republicans oppose the Affordable Care Act, opposition among donors is “almost unanimous.” Barber also notes that donors tend to be far more extreme than non-donors (see chart). (This is supported by other studies).

Such data could explain the rising polarization of Congress, as politicians increasingly respond to their donors, rather than to voters. Political scientists Walter J. Stone and Elizabeth N. Simas have found that challengers raise more money when they take extreme positions, which helps explain why incumbent representatives tend to be more partisan than departing representatives. It certainly explains the intransigence of the last two Congresses: Republicans, who are responding to their rich donor base, are incentivized to oppose any action, particularly those supporting Obama, lest they lose funding. Since Senators have to raise approximately $3,300 a day every year for six years to remain viable, they will inevitably have to succumb to the power of money if they wish to be reelected.

THE REST:

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/2/new-evidence-suggests-that-the-rich-own-our-democracy.html

[Warpy]

1. Yes, they do and elections are largely window dressing when it comes to the economy

although they remain vitally important in other areas.

It's not going to change until the next really big crash when some fortunes are wiped out to the point that controlling the political structure becomes impossibly expensive.

The only alternative is violent revolution and I don't recommend it. Those rarely turn out as advertised since the only group organized enough to rush into a power vacuum generally comes from the far right.

[blkmusclmachine]

2. ,

,

[msongs]

3. congress and the president are millionaires with ever increasing wealth because of their

government jobs and connections. when they retire is when the mega millions come rolling in

[Newest Reality]

4. Yep, that's a duh!

Well, the media and various institutions are doing one heck of a job at managing the simulation of a democracy and that, other than propaganda and talking head jazz, this system or government is primarily "for the people".

One has to admit though, it is brilliant. Buy everything, own it all, but utilize a projection of an ersatz democracy that promotes a narrowing form of "free speech" with "controversy" and "debate", (see: Faux Newz) while capitalizing and building on a screen of gullibility and misinformation while dipping in the well of concepts and beliefs that may have once been kind of true, but certainly are not anymore upon further inspection.

Rather than living in a reality, we are living in an actual simulation of hyper-reality that media and movies project in a way that makes it seem more real than real for many people. Concepts and beliefs are managed and manipulated skillfully and even scientifically in order to play to the most primitive aspects of our collective psyche in order to evoke impulsive reactions rather than informed responses by way of meaningful participation.

In that sense, what was once called the American Dream is now nothing more than a bag of potions that induce the American Astral Projection. Most of us are WAY out there, wandering around in a major, delusional trance that seems normal and sane in a very sick society.