Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy (2014)

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

by _tk_ • 2 years ago

21 26 2 years ago

bbc.com

herodotus• 2 years ago

This article was written in 2014

zone411• 2 years ago

And it's about "answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002."

Qem• 2 years ago

Original study: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

slibhb• 2 years ago

Reminder: Trump was elected in 2016 despite most of the "elites" backing Clinton, and her campaign outspending his 2:1.

Fauntleroy• 2 years ago

...and supported by the other oligarchs

eigenrick• 2 years ago

Yeah, but how much did that actually change? I mean, the media sensationalized every little thing that happened, to make people feel as if the world was ending (or being saved, depending on the news outlet). However, Corporations still ran the country through their bought-and-paid-for U.S. and state representatives, just as in administrations before and after.

Dalewyn3• 2 years ago

And we saw the Powers That Be(tm) ("elites") pull every single card in their playbook with wanton abandon to take him out, this still remains the case.

One of the things I thank Trump for is making me realize democracy is really just another way for the Powers That Be(tm) to attain and maintain power, just a lot more subtlely compared to other methods. Trump for whatever reason momentarily managed to break that cycle, and he's paying for it.

I consider this both a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing in that I don't have to spend any of my precious time giving a fuck about my vote anymore, but it's a curse in that I also realize humanity hasn't changed much since our ape days.

Apreche• 2 years ago

Two camps of oligarchs taking turns with their hands on the wheel.

jeezfrk• 2 years ago

October Surprise, 2016. Not subtle.

k__• 2 years ago

In the US not every vote has the same weight, so they can't be a democracy to begin with.

gfiorav4• 2 years ago

This is a pretty bad take. Many countries weigh population of voting regions. The idea is that the people in a smaller region with its own needs doesn't get its priorities relegated to oblivion just because no the same people live there than in a big city.

Not weighing votes by population alienates the rural voters.

ksaj• 2 years ago

The college vote has little to do with population. It might have started that way, but it seems to be more about artificially inflating one side of the vote these days. (To be fair, redistricting has been abused for this effect as well, although on a smaller scale.)

It makes it so it is possible to lose every popular vote, yet still win the election "by a landslide."

What other countries are doing this? I can't think of any.

ndarray• 2 years ago

True, it's a republic.

msarrel• 2 years ago

Old article

blackeyeblitzar2• 2 years ago

Not that oligarchy is good, but is democracy really good? Is it even really different? It is basically letting easily manipulated and uneducated people decide things. And they are manipulated by news media, which in turn is manipulated by the same powerful people this study claims are controlling policy. Today we have social media as well but most people think it’s bad - so how can they feel good about choices influenced by social media? Curious what hacker news users think, because I feel like my whole life democracy has only been talked about positively.

gfiorav4• 2 years ago

I’ve lived in a few countries. My take is:

An oligarchy where leaders frequently change based mostly on merit, with a social ladder accessible to anyone, is as close as you get to social harmony. As long as everyone has a shot, society is generally happy. (Note that a functioning economy is also needed for this.)

Democracy is mostly a safeguard to kick out the Napoleons before it’s too late.

Also, if you have strong local politics (like in the US, UK, or Australia), you might see more impact from your vote, as opposed to countries where you vote for a party and they pretty much do what they want for their term.

blackeyeblitzar2• 2 years ago

How are you defining oligarchs? I feel like in practice this term is only used to describe Russian businessmen, so I’m not sure if everyone has the same understanding.

gfiorav4• 2 years ago

I think the definition of “oligarch” is being stretched a little in the article, so I’m using it for my argument. Is Elon Musk an oligarch? Is Zuckerberg an oligarch?

My point is that as long as those at the top rotate and everyone has a shot, whether they’re called oligarchs or not doesn’t make much difference to the common person.

Gimpei• 2 years ago

This journal article has been thoroughly debunked three separate times. TLDR if you dig into the data, the middle class agree with the rich most of the time and in the small cases where they disagree, it’s a wash between who gets their way. So yes they have outsized influence, but no the US does not appear to be an oligarchy. More here: https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-...

wing-_-nuts• 2 years ago

I forget where I read it, but no matter how popular a particular bill was with the general populace, it had a ~ 30% chance of passing whether it was universally reviled or loved. The probability was literally a flat line, indicating that voter sentiment had almost no impact on what was actually passed.

Now, what's interesting is when they plotted the same line vs corporate and special interest lobbyists. There was a near perfect correlation between the sentiment of those with money and the probability of the bill passing.

Americans are getting pretty frustrated with the fact that all of our political candidates are basically 'pre-approved' by the rich, and anger is redirecting to populist candidates. It's also contributing to the partisan divide as many Americans feel abandoned by the 'establishment'.

People think politicians like Trump are the problem, when really, they're the symptom of a system that serves corporate interests over that of it's citizens.

Eddy_Viscosity2• 2 years ago

This is the crux of it. George Carlin had a bit that voting is about choosing which waiter serves you the food, but its always the same cooks in the kitchen who decide what you'll eat.

keernan• 2 years ago

Is this a surprise? Am I supposed to believe I have the same amount of influence over how Congress votes and what decisions the President makes as a billionaire has?

Is this even new? When America was founded, it was decided that "democracy" meant that only wealthy white men decide how things would be run. I assume everyone reading this is aware that in order to be a citizen and to vote you had to be: - wealthy (own land) - white (no people of color could vote) - male (women could not vote)

This country's founding was based upon protecting the power of wealthy white men and that has never changed in our entire history. Not once. Nor will it ever change. The system is carefully designed to enable the wealthy to control the levers of power (e.g. electoral college and not majority vote; and no restrictions upon using money to control political power).

Dalewyn3• 2 years ago

As a Japanese-American, please stop saying I'm a crayon.

jmclnx• 2 years ago

These days, in the US, you get 1 vote per each US Dollar in your portfolio.

the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.

This is fully true, especially since Citizens United.

Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy (2014)

Related Stories