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

[VCheng]

........
You might try educating yourself about the subject instead of throwing insults at everybody,

EVERY SINGLE POST you have made in this thread is a personal tantrum at other posters because we know you have nothing to offer besides vacuous platitudes and vague statements.

I urge readers to go back in this thread and read your posts. Every single post is vacuous and devoid of actual substance.

It all boils down to 'Ra Ra America' but no actual substance.

Okay, please tell us whether there areas in Pakistan where everybody has a vote or not? How are the Maliks elected to the national assembly and vote as members of the Legislature?

Every one of my posts is factually correct and without any insults.

Pahlay apna ghar tau seedha ker lo, phir doosroon ko seesha dikhana.

Lectures about democracy coming from Pakistanis are like the Saudis lecturing the world about women's rights.

 

[Developereo]

Okay, please tell us whether there areas in Pakistan where everybody has a vote or not? How are the Maliks elected to the national assembly and vote as members of the Legislature?

Every one of my posts is factually correct and without any insults.

Pahlay apna ghar tau seedha ker lo, phir doosroon ko seesha dikhana.

This is the part you are having difficulty digesting.

- This is NOT an attack on America.
- You do NOT represent America or speak for America -- you haven't even demonstrated an understanding of the issues.
- This is a debate about democracy and the effects of size, money and other factors upon its practice.

As for you personal attacks, they are there for everyone to see. The only response you guys can come up with is 'you hate our freedoms'. The OP is from an American source. Are you going to call them un-American? The issue is debated in political science circles all over the world -- with or without reference to America. Are you going to shut them all up because it hurts your sensibilities? Are you going to dictate who can or cannot debate this subject?

 

[VCheng]

This is the part you are having difficulty digesting.

- This is NOT an attack on America.
- You do NOT represent America or speak for America -- you haven't even demonstrated an understanding of the issues.
- This is a debate about democracy and the effects of size, money and other factors upon its practice.

As for you personal attacks, they are there for everyone to see. The only response you guys can come up with is 'you hate our freedoms'.

Please refer to these posts as examples where I did attempt to keep the discussion on track:

Interesting article, but it totally ignores the very powerful influences of local governments that are led by the people and that directly affect their communities. Democracy works much better bottom up rather than top down.

But they do. The Constitution requires each State legislature to determine how electors in the Electoral College for the state are to be chosen, so the people have the say. Always.

And very effectively too, I might add.

No, the study was a multivariate statistical analysis:

"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. This paper reports on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues."

To convert that into something else is gross and unsupported overreach.

 

[armchairPrivate]

By default, being in politics is to corrupt and be corrupted.
All politicians are corrupt.
If you are not corrupt and cannot be corrupted, you can't enter politics.
Regardless of what political system a country is under, that country will always be run by politicians who are corrupt.

 

[Developereo]

Please refer to these posts as examples where I did attempt to keep the discussion on track:

Yes that's how democracy is supposed and expected to work.

The debate here is how the practice diverges from the ideal -- especially at the national level.

All you can come up with is stock phrases like 'you hate America' or 'we will fix it' or 'the system works'.

 

[VCheng]

Yes that's how democracy is supposed and expected to work.

The debate here is how the practice diverges from the ideal -- especially at the national level.

All you can come up with is platitudes like 'you hate America' or 'we will fix it' or 'the system works'.

No Sir, perhaps you missed the point that this paper tests a statistical model with a multivariate analysis of 1,779 variables to propose a correlation between income and policy. That is all. Please ponder over this for a moment before proceeding.

US democracy is not merely national, and this model totally ignores the roles of local and State governments, where the voices of the people influence local policies and lay the foundations of further tiers of representatives to go to the national levels.

So to base a discussion on such a paper is quite misleading and very likely intentionally so.

 

[sincity]

US election dominated by 2 party system be it Republican or Democrat, they both take turn to rule after every 4 yrs or 8 yrs. No other party can even be content in the presidentail election. Independent never get the endorsement from the elite, presidentail election always end up in 2 horse race for the whitehouse. Both party failed to do their jobs but the 3rd party without the support from the wealthy and with the old establishment in place to reject the 3rd party, 3rd party can never be elect in the presidential election. Wealth and influential will buy all the votes politician need to be elect into government office.

 

[Developereo]

No Sir, perhaps you missed the point that this paper tests a statistical model with a multivariate analysis of 1,779 variables to propose a correlation between income and policy. That is all. Please ponder over this for a moment before proceeding.

The whole point of a statistical study is to find correlations and suggest underlying explanations and mechanisms. That is what is happening here and I already explained the issue in an earlier post.

US democracy is not merely national, and this model totally ignores the roles of local and State governments, where the voices of the people influence local policies and lay the foundations of further tiers of representatives to go to the national levels.

I am quite familiar with how US politics works and I already wrote that democracy works well enough at the local level.

I explained the challenges it faces once it scales beyond the local level. I would urge you to read the thread again because I don't feel like repeating myself over and over.

So to base a discussion on such a paper is quite misleading and very likely intentionally so.

Yes, we know. Anyone who debates the issue 'hates freedoms'.

US election dominated by 2 party system be it Republican or Democrat, they both take turn to rule after every 4 yrs or 8 yrs. No other party can even be content in the presidentail election. Independent never get the endorsement from the elite, presidentail election always end up in 2 horse race for the whitehouse. Both party failed to do their jobs but the 3rd party without the support from the wealthy and with the old establishment in place to reject the 3rd party, 3rd party can never be elect in the presidential election. Wealth and influential will buy all the votes politician need to be elect into government office.

Third party candidates have a hard time getting elected beyond the local level. A few candidates got elected at the state level in the US, but it is all but impossible to breach the two-party choke-hold at the national level. This holds true in many (most?) democratic countries.

 

[sincity]

The whole point of a statistical study is to find correlations and suggest underlying explanations and mechanisms. That is what is happening here and I already explained the issue in an earlier post.



I am quite familiar with how US politics works and I already wrote that democracy works well enough at the local level.

I explained the challenges it faces once it scales beyond the local level. I would urge you to read the thread again because I don't feel like repeating myself over and over.



Yes, we know. Anyone who debates the issue 'hates freedoms'.



Third party candidates have a hard time getting elected beyond the local level. A few candidates got elected at the state level in the US, but it is all but impossible to breach the two-party choke-hold at the national level. This holds true in many (most?) democratic countries.

Of course the old guard won't allow the newcomer to jeopardize their power grip in the government, a few senator from Independent party represented in US senate or congress can't and won't make any impact on the government policy. They are too few and far between to make any significant change in the US government. All Independent senator or congress end up voting on the side of the Republican or the Democrat.

 

[gambit]

LOL

It's always hilarious to see you throw a tantrum of personal insults when your ignorance and lack of debating skills leave you short.

You criticized US elections about money, implying that 'the rich' gave outrageous amount and essentially 'bought' politicians, except you did not know that we have laws limiting personal contributions.

Then you brought on that somehow 'the rich' can make a few phone calls, like the Godfather movies, and politicians would run to do their bidding.

Question: Would YOU make laws limiting personal speech based upon personal wealth level ?

After all, you mentioned how human nature would try to corrupt the democratic process, right ?

Here is what US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall (1801-1835) said...

H-Net Reviews

...a well regulated Democracy...

So what could be more 'well regulated' than dictatorial laws limiting political speech based upon wealth to prevent the corruption of democracy, right ?

Aaahh...A Pakistani living in Australia ignorant about US elections commenting on US-style democracy. What intellectual disasters can come from this ?

Third party candidates have a hard time getting elected beyond the local level. A few candidates got elected at the state level in the US, but it is all but impossible to breach the two-party choke-hold at the national level. This holds true in many (most?) democratic countries.

How did Bernie Sanders, an admitted Socialist, became a US Senator ? Because he managed to convinced enough Vermonters to elect him into the US Senate. He did not used the bullets method of 'persuasion'. If other non-Democrat or non-Republican candidates in other states failed to get elected, how is that the system's fault when the burden of persuasion falls ENTIRELY upon the candidates ?

Oh...Right...It is the default 'the rich' who is at fault.

It is always 'the rich', or 'the Jews', or 'the elites', but never the citizenry.

 

[gambit]

US election dominated by 2 party system...

Do you know why ? I doubt it.

 

[JSCh]

Would the US be humbled by this findings? Would it affect any change in US foreign policy?

Errr... I am not holding my breath precisely because the findings is really nothing surprising.

Maybe US citizens(or only the elite?) feel that US government is by and large looking after their interest? They are happy with their status in the world?

Is US citizens really that dumb that they do not know that the rich/elite has a disproportional say in the affairs of the state? I would give them more credit then that. They have live their whole life in the US, sure they know.

I can just hope that they don't treat the rest of the world as dumb.

 

[Developereo]

You criticized US elections about money, implying that 'the rich' gave outrageous amount and essentially 'bought' politicians, except you did not know that we have laws limiting personal contributions.

Your hallucinations about what other people know or don't know may be a source of amusement, but they do nothing to further your arguments.

This is a pattern with you: every time you get cornered, you start imagining things and respond to your own fabrications.

Your argument about campaign contributions was easily refuted because YOU haven't the faintest clue about how political influence peddling works in the real world. Once again, my argument here is about influence. Influence can be exerted in a thousand different ways, quite apart from direct campaign contributions. Only the most naive would believe that campaign contributions are the be-all and end-all of influence peddling.

Aaahh...A Pakistani living in Australia ignorant about US elections commenting on US-style democracy. What intellectual disasters can come from this ?

I know more about the US political process than you will know in ten lifetimes. Already, you have demonstrated scant understanding of the issue being debated. That's why you keep going in circles, deliberately conflating my statements and -- the ultimate desperation -- coming up with wild hallucinatory statements about what I said or wrote.

EVERY single time you start attacking posters instead of debating specifics, you exude desperation.

How did Bernie Sanders, an admitted Socialist, became a US Senator ? Because he managed to convinced enough Vermonters to elect him into the US Senate. He did not used the bullets method of 'persuasion'. If other non-Democrat or non-Republican candidates in other states failed to get elected, how is that the system's fault when the burden of persuasion falls ENTIRELY upon the candidates ?

And where did I deny that third party candidates can get elected at the state level?

 

[fallstuff]

We don't need a study from Princeton to find the obvious, duh !!

 

[sincity]

Do you know why ? I doubt it.

Why do I need to know a reason why? facts are proof no other party dominate US political landscapte in the US other than Republican and Democrat. Since you doubt my knowledge on US political landscape then you can answer the question you posted to me so we all can learn from your knowledge in political science.