Study: You Have 'Near-Zero' Impact on U.S. Policy

[Brouwer]

Study: You Have 'Near-Zero' Impact on U.S. Policy - Democratic Underground

By Allan J. Lichtman, contributor

"The public be damned!"
— William H. Vanderbilt, railroad magnate, 1882

A shattering new study by two political science professors has found that ordinary Americans have virtually no impact whatsoever on the making of national policy in our country. The analysts found that rich individuals and business-controlled interest groups largely shape policy outcomes in the United States.

This study should be a loud wake-up call to the vast majority of Americans who are bypassed by their government. To reclaim the promise of American democracy, ordinary citizens must act positively to change the relationship between the people and our government

The new study, with the jaw-clenching title of "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens," is forthcoming in the fall 2014 edition of Perspectives on Politics. Its authors, Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University, examined survey data on 1,779 national policy issues for which they could gauge the preferences of average citizens, economic elites, mass-based interest groups and business-dominated interest groups. They used statistical methods to determine the influence of each of these four groups on policy outcomes, including both policies that are adopted and rejected.

The analysts found that when controlling for the power of economic elites and organized interest groups, the influence of ordinary Americans registers at a "non-significant, near-zero level." The analysts further discovered that rich individuals and business-dominated interest groups dominate the policymaking process. The mass-based interest groups had minimal influence compared to the business-based interest groups.

Read more: Who rules America? | TheHill

Completely unsurprising, but still quite sobering. Wake up America!

 

[Jango]

Here's the study: https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/...20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf

And then there is this: BBC News - Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy

 

[Brouwer]

Here's the study: https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/...20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf

And then there is this: BBC News - Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy

Cheers Jango!

I wonder when the apologists for this system will arrive and do ridiculous mental gymnastics to defend the status quo.

 

[Paschendale]

I would be surprised if anyone needed a study to know this.

 

[ecofarm]

We are greater than the sum of our parts.

 

[Mithrae]

Tuppence more and up goes the donkey.

 

[Risky Thicket]

We are greater than the sum of our parts.

IF, the People can find enough common ground to use the system to change the system. I would submit that at present the system acts in whatever way it can to protect itself from the People. The nation appears to be divided and a divided nation will never change the system.

Remember the scene from Blazing Saddles with Levon Helm pulling a gun on himself, holding a gun to his own head and pretending to kidnap himself, in an effort to get away from an angry mob of townspeople? Whenever I hear the public talk about asking Congress to make a law concerning term limits I always think of the scene from Blazing Saddles.

The public doesn't need a law requiring term limits. The People already have the power; don't vote for the incumbent after two terms. Nope, won't happen. People are too divided, apathetic or stupid to unify and make it happen. In essence the People hold a gun to its collective head and begs Congress to pass a law that will knock the wheels right of the Congressional gravy train. Congress INDIVIDUALLY usually concurs with public sentiment regarding term limits knowing full well such a bill would never make it out of committee. The People can vote the bastards out of office, but they won't and they don't.

 

[lizzie]

Completely unsurprising, but still quite sobering. Wake up America!

-----------------

I wonder when the apologists for this system will arrive and do ridiculous mental gymnastics to defend the status quo.

I doubt that many of our members would find this surprising at all. We like to feel like our efforts matter, but overall they probably don't. Of course, in a socialist system, things would likely be worse. We would essentially have little impact as individuals, and we would also have an overbearing state power structure that we would probably have zero choice about.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Study: You Have 'Near-Zero' Impact on U.S. Policy - Democratic Underground

Completely unsurprising, but still quite sobering. Wake up America!

Completely unsurprising. We have an oligarchy, and are quickly heading for a kakistocracy. The sheeple are too easily manipulated by slick advertising, which costs a lot of money, and by party loyalty. We seriously need to stage a revolution at the ballot box and vote out all of the incumbents, then turn off the TV every time the special interests play yet another commercial full of half truths and outright lies.

But, alas, the people are still easily manipulated, so nothing much is likely to change.

 

[sangha]

Cheers Jango!

I wonder when the apologists for this system will arrive and do ridiculous mental gymnastics to defend the status quo.

And when they do, I have a feeling that won't be denying the truth of the report; They'll be arguing why it's a good thing

 

[Slartibartfast]

Study: You Have 'Near-Zero' Impact on U.S. Policy - Democratic Underground

Completely unsurprising, but still quite sobering. Wake up America!

And this is exactly why we can't tell much difference between bush and obama.

too much entrenched power because somehow money = speech.

 

[Hamster Buddha]

Study: You Have 'Near-Zero' Impact on U.S. Policy - Democratic Underground

Completely unsurprising, but still quite sobering. Wake up America!

I'll be alone on this island, I think what we say does have an opinion.

After all, if it were up to Obama, we'd have attacked Syria back when they crossed the red line. That and after Obamacare, you had a big shake up in the balance of power.

Ultimately though, nothing is getting done in Washington, but that has more to do with the deep division we see in politics, and not from some lack of influence the American People have.

 

[ecofarm]

IF, the People can find enough common ground to use the system to change the system.

Systems change, of this we can be certain.

 

[Paschendale]

IF, the People can find enough common ground to use the system to change the system. I would submit that at present the system acts in whatever way it can to protect itself from the People. The nation appears to be divided and a divided nation will never change the system.

too much entrenched power because somehow money = speech.

You'd think maybe the 99.99% of us who can't afford to bribe candidates with vast sums of money could get together and do something about the equating of money and speech and keep private money out of our elections. That's a necessary first step before any meaningful change can occur.

 

[Risky Thicket]

You'd think maybe the 99.99% of us who can't afford to bribe candidates with vast sums of money could get together and do something about the equating of money and speech and keep private money out of our elections. That's a necessary first step before any meaningful change can occur.

It bothers me no end that in assessing damn near any candidate's chances in any state or national election their assessment is reported in dollar amounts. Not one person, one vote, but dollars.

Money changes everything ~ C. Lauper

 

[a351]

Was there a time period in which the average citizen wielded impact that actually rivaled any of the three counterparts? I'm actually struggling to recall a time period in which the average joe's take was given more credence in the political arena.

 

[TeleKat]

I doubt that many of our members would find this surprising at all. We like to feel like our efforts matter, but overall they probably don't. Of course, in a socialist system, things would likely be worse. We would essentially have little impact as individuals, and we would also have an overbearing state power structure that we would probably have zero choice about.

Hey lizzie :2wave:

Socialism is simply common ownership over the means of production. All right-wing dogma aside, that's what it is. Totalitarianism is not the result of socialism. Totalitarianism can exist in socialism, yes, however socialism can also exist in minarchy (minimal/limited government) or even anarchy.

 

[lizzie]

Socialism is simply common ownership over the means of production. All right-wing dogma aside, that's what it is. Totalitarianism is not the result of socialism. Totalitarianism can exist in socialism, yes, however socialism can also exist in minarchy (minimal/limited government) or even anarchy.

Yes, I realize that totalitarianism isn't the expected result. It's that human nature is to have a hierarchy, and in a socialistic society, that historically seems to be what happens.

 

[sangha]

Yes, I realize that totalitarianism isn't the expected result. It's that human nature is to have a hierarchy, and in a socialistic society, that historically seems to be what happens.

You mean like the totalitarian govts of Sweden and Norway?

The places that historically have totalitarian govts are those that do not have a history of democracy. Socialism has little to do with it.

 

[TeleKat]

You mean like the totalitarian govts of Sweden and Norway?

Beat me to it, sangha. :thumbs:

 

[Kal'Stang]

Study: You Have 'Near-Zero' Impact on U.S. Policy - Democratic Underground

Completely unsurprising, but still quite sobering. Wake up America!

We needed a study for this? Its one of the reasons I don't vote. Because my vote is USELESS. No election is ever EVER decided by 1 vote. And then once they are in power they sure as hell don't listen to what we say...though they sure do pay lipservice that they do!

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Study ... America!

Of course we have very little impact.
That's the only reason why so many people subscribe to wacky-ass ideas--there's no cost attached to being irrational about politics and the govt.
Well, no cost to the individual incurred from the outcome of supporting some stupid, wildly impractical, asshat idea.
The only meaningful costs are the ones that impact us and which we have control over such as how out politics affects our peer group and family.
Those meaningful costs are likely the largest factors we use when making decisions "cost-free" decisions.

The lower the private cost, the more agents buy.
A peculiar feature of beliefs about politics, religion, etc. is that the private cost of irrationality is zero.

.
​