Do you want "Economic-Elite Domination" or "Majoritarian Electoral Democracy"

[kristopher]

2014

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page

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. We report 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.

Full paper here: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Martin Gilens is Professor of Politics at Princeton University ([e-mail]). His research examines representa- tion, public opinion, and mass media, especially in relation to inequality and public policy. Professor Gilens is the author of Affluence & Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America (2012, Princeton University Press).

Benjamin I. Page is Gordon S. Fulcher Professor of Decision Making at Northwestern University (b-page@- northwestern.edu). His research interests include public opinion, policy making, the mass media, and U.S. foreign policy. He is currently engaged in a large collaborative project to study Economically Successful Americans and the Common Good.

From The New Yorker

Is America an Oligarchy?
by John Cassidy
April 18, 2014


From the Dept. of Academics Confirming Something You Already Suspected comes a new study concluding that rich people and organizations representing business interests have a powerful grip on U.S. government policy. After examining differences in public opinion across income groups on a wide variety of issues, the political scientists Martin Gilens, of Princeton, and Benjamin Page, of Northwestern, found that the preferences of rich people had a much bigger impact on subsequent policy decisions than the views of middle-income and poor Americans. Indeed, the opinions of lower-income groups, and the interest groups that represent them, appear to have little or no independent impact on policy.

“Our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts,” Gilens and Page write:

Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

That’s a big claim. In their conclusion, Gilens and Page go even further, asserting that “In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover … even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.”

...

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy



Is this an acceptable state of being for this nation?

[Betty Karlson]

1. It is certainly the traditional state of being for this nation.

Whether it was acceptable, should be acceptable, still is acceptable, or will remain acceptable is a matter of debate. See also: DU - ibidem.

[daybranch]

2. so to fix this problem

of billionaires running our country, we start by challenging them by electing Bernie and getting rid of other impediments to majority rule, the most sinister being Gerrymandering the home districts of the members of the US House of Representatives. We also elect candidates who support the people not rich donors. The revolution is on. The ball is in our court and we will keep it as we work towards our goal.

[kristopher]

3. We've already had the revolution

This is a very real democracy, and if the 99% just show up money ceases to be the real power.

Here is my impossible but preferred goal:

Text of (proposed) Amendment XXVI
Obligation for minimum civil participation
We determine that in accordance with observed human preference we hereby create two classes of citizenry where those who vote are favored with privileges of convenience over those who do not vote.

Where the ONLY criteria required to move between classes shall be to appear or not at the designated voting location, make known their presence to presiding officials and select, through the medium of a paper ballot, their choice on matters before the bench of public opinion.

Further, all ballots shall include as a final selection to each matter on the ballot, a “reject all” protest provision ensuring that the right to actively reject any or all choices presented be recognized; this protection to ensure this category of public opinion also be tabulated to weigh in the balance of public awareness.