5 ms·

But isn't that the same thing? Left just to the votes of the people and equal opportunity campaign investments, those candidates and those policies wouldn't get

But isn't that the same thing? Left just to the votes of the people and equal opportunity campaign investments, those candidates and those policies wouldn't get the power. You are describing that, instead, candidates are essentially put in power by companies, who are therefore still in effect buying policy. Then, the representatives are no longer representing the people but the money.

forgotpwtomain 10y ago
> But isn't that the same thing? Sure, it is the same thing in practice - but it's not what OP is suggesting: >> Who would want to admit they are guilty of being essentially corrupt?Of cooooourse they would find excuses. But it's incredibly naïve to say US politicians aren't influenced by money. They are all bought. > Then, the representatives are no longer representing the people but the money. The representatives are probably accurately representing the balance of power in US society, which is weighted towards economic/financial interests.
- dragonbonheur 10y ago
  > The representatives are probably accurately representing the balance of power in US society, which is weighted towards economic/financial interests. Obviously you are assuming that I'm pulling my statements out of thin air (or some other place where the sun don't shine :D ). Here's a paper from Princeton University that essentially says that public opinion as almost ZERO effect on US policy: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...
  - varjag 10y ago
    Oh. If there's a paper, that settles it.
  - forgotpwtomain 10y ago
    If they have almost no effect than they have almost no power - isn't that tautological? Also it should be noted the paper contrasts public opinion to 'organized interest groups': > Our third and fourth theoretical traditions posit that public policy generally reflects the outcome of struggle among organized interest groups and business firms. But in a number of cases organized interest groups are representative of a significant sector of public opinion (the NRA being one such example, or the ACLU is another).
  - Hondor 10y ago
    Not having read the paper, I'd bet it has something to do with the fact that most American voters don't vote for any of the issues that concern them. Instead they just vote for the same party they've always voted for or the one their friends vote for. If most people consistently disregard their own interests when voting, they're bound to get something they don't want. Even those people who aren't so consistent in their voting just vote for whoever the advertising tells them to, which favors the most well funded and thus most corrupt candidates.

forgotpwtomain 10y ago

> But isn't that the same thing? Sure, it is the same thing in practice - but it's not what OP is suggesting: >> Who would want to admit they are guilty of being essentially corrupt?Of cooooourse they would find excuses. But it's incredibly naïve to say US politicians aren't influenced by money. They are all bought. > Then, the representatives are no longer representing the people but the money. The representatives are probably accurately representing the balance of power in US society, which is weighted towards economic/financial interests.

dragonbonheur 10y ago
> The representatives are probably accurately representing the balance of power in US society, which is weighted towards economic/financial interests. Obviously you are assuming that I'm pulling my statements out of thin air (or some other place where the sun don't shine :D ). Here's a paper from Princeton University that essentially says that public opinion as almost ZERO effect on US policy: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...
- varjag 10y ago
  Oh. If there's a paper, that settles it.
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago
  If they have almost no effect than they have almost no power - isn't that tautological? Also it should be noted the paper contrasts public opinion to 'organized interest groups': > Our third and fourth theoretical traditions posit that public policy generally reflects the outcome of struggle among organized interest groups and business firms. But in a number of cases organized interest groups are representative of a significant sector of public opinion (the NRA being one such example, or the ACLU is another).
- Hondor 10y ago
  Not having read the paper, I'd bet it has something to do with the fact that most American voters don't vote for any of the issues that concern them. Instead they just vote for the same party they've always voted for or the one their friends vote for. If most people consistently disregard their own interests when voting, they're bound to get something they don't want. Even those people who aren't so consistent in their voting just vote for whoever the advertising tells them to, which favors the most well funded and thus most corrupt candidates.