Princeton Concludes What Kind of Government America Really Has, and It's Not a Democracy

[MastanKhan]

Anyone with a basic education knows that in a "true" democracy every enfranchised citizen would vote on every single law etc. The US is a "Republic"....we have representatives vote in our interest. And no matter the party....a representative who consistently votes against his electorate's interest gets tossed out.

Hi,

Your last sentence is the very fundamental of democracy. You can only be elected from your primary place of residence that you declared on your taxes.


It is totally different in pakistan---and for that reason---pakistan will never be democratic. In pak---a representative can fight in an election from more than one constituency at the same time. He will fight from his own place of residency---then to assure he gets a seat---he may chose to fight from another location ---maybe 50 miles---maybe 100 miles---maybe in a different province. Totally against the norms of democracy.

 

[Developereo]

Simple question: Which is preferable, money or bullets ?

People who criticizes American politics so often came from or living in countries where the influence of bullets is the norm and usually run away from that question. Wonder why ?

No one is disputing that democracy is the better alternative. The issue being discussed is to what extent money and power can corrupt democracy and, given the dollar figures involved, the US is the obvious case study. Some countries, like Pakistan, have a sham democracy that is not worthy of the name, so there is not much to discuss.

This debate about money is a very valid subject in political science.

You guys need to stop being so sensitive and view every discussion as an attack on "our freedoms". Lots of issues about lots of countries get debated here.

 

[gambit]

No one is disputing that democracy is the better alternative. The issue being discussed is to what extent money and power can corrupt democracy and, given the dollar figures involved, the US is the obvious case study. Some countries, like Pakistan, have a sham democracy that is not worthy of the name, so there is not much to discuss.

This debate about money is a very valid subject in political science.

You guys need to stop being so sensitive and view every discussion as an attack on "our freedoms". Lots of issues about lots of countries get debated here.

If money can corrupt, money can also un-corrupt, as in citizens can use their own money to create their own advocacy groups. As you noted, senior citizens formed their own lobbying organization, and if senior citizens can do it, as in having the right and freedom to do it, so should people with shared interests form their own lobbying groups. Companion to this -- are the freedom of the press and an adversarial relationship between the government and the press.

So for all the critics here: Explain why there is a lobbying group for senior citizens, the American Association of Retired Persons, but nothing for the younger demographics ? Are there laws in the US that says only corporations and old people can form lobbying groups but individual young working people cannot ?

 

[Sam1980]

Whatever it is, it works!

 

[Developereo]

Companion to this -- are the freedom of the press and an adversarial relationship between the government and the press.

The government and the press are not always in an adversarial role. Both groups need each other. As much as the politicians need good press, the press also needs to maintain a working relationship with politicians.

So for all the critics here: Explain why there is a lobbying group for senior citizens, the American Association of Retired Persons, but nothing for the younger demographics ? Are there laws in the US that says only corporations and old people can form lobbying groups but individual young working people cannot ?

There is nothing stopping young people from forming similar groups, but the issue raised by Princeton is not about young v/s old. but rich v/s ordinary people.

Let me give an example:

Let's say there are 100,000 people who feel strongly about an issue. They can write letters and make phone calls and pay personal visits to the politician to appeal their case. On the other side, a handful of fat cats only need to make a few phone calls to have the same effect.

The politician will make a calculated decision whether to ignore the 100,000 citizens if he/she can be sure that the remaining 10 million people won't care either way. The onus is now on the 100,000 people to make their case to the wider population and their success will depend on their ability to use mass media. If the fat cats have friends in the media, it's going to be a tough call for the 100,000.

At the end of the day, as I mentioned, democracy doesn't scale beyond a certain point because the crucial driver of democracy -- the ability to communicate your message -- is controlled by an elite. To counter the power of a handful of elite, you need a LOT of ordinary people.

That's why there's all this buzz about social media being a game changer because it supposedly shifts some power of mass communication from the elite to the ordinary, but I don't know how successful it can be in the long term. The internet also has a reputation for being the abode of the loony and the fringe fanatics, and most people tend to trust the mainstream media over social media..

 

[gambit]

The government and the press are not always in an adversarial role. Both groups need each other. As much as the politicians need good press, the press also needs to maintain a working relationship with politicians.

An individual reporter may or may not cultivate a friendly relationship with assorted lawmakers, but the essence of an adversarial press-government relationship is about the NON-OWNERSHIP of the press which naturally preserve the option to be adversarial or cooperative AT THE DISCRETION OF THE PRESS.

If the press is voluntarily in the pocket of the government, as how the current American press is to Barack Obama, then the fault lies with the press and the people, not with the government because the government will exploit any gullible entity and/or person it comes across.

You missed what it meant to be 'adversarial'.

There is nothing stopping young people from forming similar groups, but the issue raised by Princeton is not about young v/s old. but rich v/s ordinary people.

But the bulk of the AARP are from ordinary people. The 'rich' and their alleged control of the media and method of delivery is a canard. There are plenty of independent news outlets in the US outside of the main five news companies. Now we have the Internet where anybody can broadcast his/her view independent of reviews and censorship, overt or covert.

The money criticism is no longer intellectually valid.

 

[Dubious]

You are not making sense and it looks like because you have a distorted context of democracy.

If I elect you into Congress (or Parliament), I gave you my vote because you convinced me that you would support A, B, and C when in government.

Democracy checked: I gave you my vote.

But once you are in Congress (or Parliament), instead of supporting issues A, B, and C as you promised, you changed your mind and support issues X, Y, and Z. So after your term is done, I and the rest of our district voted you out and voted someone else in who would support issues A, B, and C.

Democracy checked again: We voted you out and voted someone else in.

If that is the case Pakistan is also democratic...we get fooled when elections happen by people promising us the same ABC but end up doing the same XYZ...

We are Americanized?!

So how in the world can you say that voting you out of office is 'not a democracy' ? Looks to me you are used to the severe abuse or power and corruption that is common in dictatorships so now you are trying to impute those characteristics into our system.

You are trying to imply America has zero corruption level? That is a little too much in denial dont you think?

No...We are not perfect and neither is our democracy,

That is all I pointed in my 1st few posts but I saw your countryman @VCheng denying everything so I let it go to extremes...

but B41 was voted out after one term, then Clinton got voted in twice, then B43 received the same treatment, and now we have a black President who got voted in twice. We see a sway between Republican and Democrat over nearly 30 yrs., 1989 with B41 to 2014 with Obama. Unlike the dictatorships you are used to, no violence occurred and the military took no side.

This is really cheap coming from American...No dictatorship...You guys are just happy you threw in your vote and it got counted without thinking who paid for the election campaign ...who made the nobody a somebody...whose money came in? those was my real question from the beginning...but we all should know @VCheng by now...

I never attacked America or anything...I questioned it...

The Princeton article revealed nothing. In every society, there will always be an elite class, whether that class wields its influence with money or bullets is what bothered you because the dictatorships you are used to, bullets are the currency and method of oligarchs.

That was not my point ...my point was democracy is literally electing the rich..or elected due to the influence of the rich...

oligarchs do exist in America otherwise why are election campaign and contributors soo important?

As for your taunt on dictatorship...well a population like ours with less educated people need someone to boss them...not until we get a proper education system in place, I doubt the population is capable of making a proper decision...call it dictatorship with your taunts as that is what you are taught (that too from one who has never been in such circumstances)...what we observe with our population is how we learn...the educated class would not want a dictatorship but the uneducated class needs it...

thats my opinion you have the right to yours like I have the right to mine but your taunting shows me your level of intellect and mind you in free America apparently other's view is not very free!

Princeton highlighted a reality which many people don't like to acknowledge.

My very point...rest was a number of questions which eventually led to the poster to agree anyway...but the "not acknowledging" button is seems to not have an off switch...

Direct, Athenian, democracy simply doesn't scale beyond a certain level. That's why most countries have representational republics but, even there, influence will always be proportional to one's wealth and power. Everyone simply is not created equal.

This inequality manifests itself in many ways.

Organizing a special interest lobby takes time and resources, and rich people have more of both compared to poor people. Of course poor people can also organize themselves -- there are teachers' lobbies and government workers' lobbies -- but it takes lots of poor people to match the influence of fewer rich people. On a per-head basis, a rich person has more influence than does a poor person.

Agreed

Also, poor people's votes can be bought, directly or indirectly, by the rich.

Answers my question which unfortunately my many questions did not yield from one who refuses to acknowledge!

There is also a fine line between bribery of politicians, which is illegal, and political contributions, which are considered a form of free speech and a cornerstone of democracy. There can't be a direct contract (which would be bribery), but the unspoken quid pro quo underlying political contributions is understood by both parties. You are helping a candidate get elected and, in return, you expect them to be responsive to your concerns.

and hence I used the word contributors didnt call it a bribe but an influence!

The influence of money in the American political process is a subject of heated debate.

One final complication is that issues are prioritized by voters. So, a voter may have certain views on the issue of immigration (A), environment (B), gun control (C), and economy (D). But it is unlikely that there will be a candidate who has the exact same policy proposals on all these issues that match the voter's views. So the voter has to prioritize and vote for a candidate because of agreement on issue (D), even though their views on issue (C) may diverge. So, when Princeton says that issue (C) is not being represented, that's only because it wasn't a priority for enough voters compared to other issues.

I totally understand that...and agree

 

[Developereo]

An individual reporter may or may not cultivate a friendly relationship with assorted lawmakers, but the essence of an adversarial press-government relationship is about the NON-OWNERSHIP of the press which naturally preserve the option to be adversarial or cooperative AT THE DISCRETION OF THE PRESS.

If the press is voluntarily in the pocket of the government, as how the current American press is to Barack Obama, then the fault lies with the press and the people, not with the government because the government will exploit any gullible entity and/or person it comes across.

You missed what it meant to be 'adversarial'.

There is absolutely nothing that requires or compels the press to be adversarial to the government and to keep tabs on it. It is a wish and a hope and a prayer, but the press is free to do what it wants.

If the elected candidate is fulfilling the agenda of the media moguls, then they will have no reason to critique him/her.

American media ownership is actually extremely concentrated.

These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America | Business Insider

But the bulk of the AARP are from ordinary people. The 'rich' and their alleged control of the media and method of delivery is a canard. There are plenty of independent news outlets in the US outside of the main five news companies. Now we have the Internet where anybody can broadcast his/her view independent of reviews and censorship, overt or covert.

The money criticism is no longer intellectually valid.

I already explained that money provides leverage. A handful of elites exert as much influence as thousands of ordinary people combined.

Or course, the ordinary people can make their voices heard, but it takes a lot more effort and a lot more coordination. The voice of a single ordinary voter is not equal to that of an elite voter, in terms of access to politicians.

 

[Developereo]

My very point...rest was a number of questions which eventually led to the poster to agree anyway...but the "not acknowledging" button is seems to not have an off switch...

I don't know of any reputable political scientist who rejects the premise that (excessive) money corrupts the democratic process.

The debate in political science is not whether money corrupts, but how much, and how to mitigate such corruption.

 

[Fukuoka]

Bush & Kerry are 2 famous skull and bones

 

[Dubious]

I don't know of any reputable political scientist who rejects the premise that (excessive) money corrupts the democratic process.

The debate in political science is not whether money corrupts, but how much, and how to mitigate such corruption.

I agree it is very much of a debate of how much money corrupts and how much is already placed in that has led to 1 form of corruption or another....

 

[gambit]

There is absolutely nothing that requires or compels the press to be adversarial to the government and to keep tabs on it.

Sure there is. It is found in the moral burdens of being the press in the first place.

You are clearly someone who is w-----i-----d-----e open for the myth of a 'benevolent dictator'. Personal responsibility must be very low on your list of moral burdens, which I suspect is light. Politically speaking, you seems to hesitate on placing any blame, or as little as possible, on the citizenry but as much as possible on 'the rich' and 'the elites', hence the wish for said 'benevolent dictator' to save the people.

 

[Developereo]

Sure there is. It is found in the moral burdens of being the press in the first place.

You are clearly someone who is w-----i-----d-----e open for the myth of a 'benevolent dictator'. Personal responsibility must be very low on your list of moral burdens, which I suspect is light. Politically speaking, you seems to hesitate on placing any blame, or as little as possible, on the citizenry but as much as possible on 'the rich' and 'the elites', hence the wish for said 'benevolent dictator' to save the people.

Yawn.

Once again, when you can't debate the specifics, you resort to cheap personal attacks.

 

[gambit]

If that is the case Pakistan is also democratic...we get fooled when elections happen by people promising us the same ABC but end up doing the same XYZ...

We are Americanized?!

Let me know when you can vote them in/out cycle after cycle without violence, then you can call yourselves 'Americanized'.

You are trying to imply America has zero corruption level? That is a little too much in denial dont you think?

What I explained was in the abstract. In practice, of course there is corruption in the American political system and processes.

This is really cheap coming from American...No dictatorship...You guys are just happy you threw in your vote and it got counted without thinking who paid for the election campaign ...who made the nobody a somebody...whose money came in? those was my real question from the beginning...but we all should know

Who paid for the election campaign ? How about donations from the people ?

Contributions Brochure
Contribution Limits Chart 2013-14

Big Money Breakdown: Why 2012 Is the Most Expensive Election Ever

The Obama campaign raised more than $632 million during the 2012 election season, about 62 percent more than the Romney campaign's $389 million. When factoring fundraising by the Democratic and Republican National Committees, the Obama re-election team still topped Romney's by $166 million.

Romney received an equalizing boost from $350 million in outside spending, while Obama benefited from about $100 million from outside groups. As Election Day arrives, Romney and Obama remain nearly tied in the polls.

The pro-Romney effort relied heavily on big donations from wealthy donors who supported his campaign and pro-GOP outside spending groups. The Romney campaign raised more than four times more money from large individual donors than from small donors.

The Obama campaign relied heavily on a groundswell of small donations from grassroots support, with 34 percent of the Obama war chest made up of donations of $200 or less. The total amount of money the Obama campaign raised from donors who gave more than $200, however, amounted to about twice as much as was raised from small donors who gave less than $200.

You did not perform even basic logic, let alone basic research. Logical thinking would mean money cannot be conjured out of nothing. Had to come from somewhere, right ?

The dishonesty in your, and others', criticism is that somehow a billionaire, millionaire, and corporations can give as much as each like, never mind that the federal laws on limits are plain for anyone to search and think about it.

So if the 2012 campaign combined cost of $1 billion and there are laws limiting individual and PAC contributions to maximum of $5000, WHERE THE HELL DO YOU THINK THE REST OF THAT BILLION CAME FROM ? RUSSIANS ? CHINESE ? CUBANS ?

If 1000 people create a 'political action committee' (PAC) for Hillary Clinton, then another 1000 create another PAC, and so on, each PAC is very much a lobbying group for each 1000 citizens who shares the same dream of electing Hillary Clinton or even Marvin the Martian for President. If 3000 people can do it for Hillary Clinton, another 3000 can do it for Marvin, another 3000 for Mitt Romney, another 3000 for Clint Eastwood, and so on, if they want to.

I never attacked America or anything...I questioned it...

Use the American invention called 'The Internet' and do a better job of questioning US.

The fucking laws are there for anyone to see and the goddamn newspapers dissect the contributions in every election.

That was not my point ...my point was democracy is literally electing the rich..or elected due to the influence of the rich...

Nothing wrong with being rich, is there ?

oligarchs do exist in America otherwise why are election campaign and contributors soo important?

Because we use money instead of bullets to elect people.

As for your taunt on dictatorship...well a population like ours with less educated people need someone to boss them...not until we get a proper education system in place, I doubt the population is capable of making a proper decision...call it dictatorship with your taunts as that is what you are taught (that too from one who has never been in such circumstances)...what we observe with our population is how we learn...the educated class would not want a dictatorship but the uneducated class needs it...

Then get your electoral house in order before you start 'questioning' US. But if you do, then considering the illiteracy rate in your house, we will taunt you for questioning US.

Yawn.

Once again, when you can't debate the specifics, you resort to cheap personal attacks.

When you cannot even understand the basic relationship of the press and the government in a democracy...

 

[Developereo]

When you cannot even understand the basic relationship of the press and the government in a democracy...

What you lack is the intellect to understand the difference between an obligatory role and a voluntary role.