3 ms·
> The representatives are probably accurately representing the balance of power in US society, which is weighted towards economic/financial interests. Obviousl
by 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 agoOh. If there's a paper, that settles it.
- forgotpwtomain 10y agoIf 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 agoNot 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.