6 ms·

Well, in the US, as possibly in other places, elections are usually won by the candidate who receives the most corporate support. On top of this, a bipartite po

Well, in the US, as possibly in other places, elections are usually won by the candidate who receives the most corporate support. On top of this, a bipartite political system can quite easily keep out candidates with views that are unpalatable to the rich and powerful (e.g. see how Bernie Sanders was treated by the Democratic establishment in 2016). Individuals mostly rubber-stamp one of the two mainstream candidates.

bhupy 7y ago
> Well, in the US, as possibly in other places, elections are usually won by the candidate who receives the most corporate support Again, this is orthogonal to the point about inequality. Insofar as corporations or money are involved in politics in America, it's for campaigning — buying TV ads, flyers, etc. While it's true that this makes it easier for richer people to get their message out there, the fact of the matter is that the message still needs to resonate with a broad enough polity capturing working class, college educated, non-college educated, urban, rural voters etc (see: the Electoral College). Just to give you some numbers, in the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton outspent Donald Trump $132M vs $92M. In the ongoing Democratic Primary for the upcoming 2020 election, the TV ad spending through 12/3/2019 is as follows. The candidate's polling percentage at the same time is included in parenthesis. Steyer: $63.4 million (1%) Bloomberg: $37 million (<1%) Sanders: $6.7 million (15%) Buttigieg: $5.1 million (13%) Yang: $2.9 million (4%) Biden: $1.7 million (25%) Klobuchar: $1.3 million (3%) Bennet: $1 million (<1%) Gabbard: $1 million (1%) Warren: $926k (18%) Delaney: $662k (<1%) > On top of this, a bipartite political system can quite easily keep out candidates with views that are unpalatable to the rich and powerful (e.g. see how Bernie Sanders was treated by the Democratic establishment in 2016) You're right about this, but the Democratic Primaries are not a good example of a democratic institution (ironically) — it's a private club and they can make their own rules, for better or for worse. During the general election, the opposite happened; the rich and powerful overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton, and yet she still lost. > Individuals mostly rubber-stamp one of the two mainstream candidates. This is true, but has nothing to do with economic inequality. The two-party system is an artifact of the first-past-the-post voting system. Since ~1860, there have only been two mainstream candidates, and inequality has varied wildly in that time period: i.e. no correlation.
- leto_ii 7y ago
  In a society there are may levers (official or not, transparent or not) that the powerful can pull to get politics to lean their preferred way. This is true of all places and all times. The more power is concentrated, the easier it is for a very small group of individuals to have a very large impact on decision making. All the billions poured in campaign funding, lobbying etc. do actually buy a lot of influence albeit not in a direct, transparent way. The same billions can also sway public opinion through deliberate and persistent propaganda in support of certain view points and against others. Nowadays (and probably throughout most of modern history) you have to be highly committed and quite fanatical if you want to develop well grounded opinions that are not very much affected by propaganda. Most people don't have the time and resources for this -> most people are easily swayed by corporate propaganda.
  - bhupy 7y ago
    Unless you provide data or empirical evidence, it's just a vague intuition. There's more than enough evidence to the contrary (as I've provided). At the end of the day, people act as individuals, and they have their beliefs and biases. For example, a small group of wealthy individuals can pour as much money as they want into pro-abortion propaganda, but it's unlikely that it will sway pro-lifers' opinions (especially evangelical Christians). Money doesn't influence opinions directly, it just affords you a platform to try and change someone's mind. The only way to change one's mind is if the message is compelling, and because the US requires broad buy-in for any democratic action, the message needs to be compelling to a broad audience, not just a small group of wealthy people.
    - leto_ii 7y ago
      You hardly provided more than enough evidence on the contrary. I can however point you to the work of Thomas Ferguson for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_theory_of_party_competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_theory_of_party_com...
      - bhupy 7y ago

bhupy 7y ago

> Well, in the US, as possibly in other places, elections are usually won by the candidate who receives the most corporate support Again, this is orthogonal to the point about inequality. Insofar as corporations or money are involved in politics in America, it's for campaigning — buying TV ads, flyers, etc. While it's true that this makes it easier for richer people to get their message out there, the fact of the matter is that the message still needs to resonate with a broad enough polity capturing working class, college educated, non-college educated, urban, rural voters etc (see: the Electoral College). Just to give you some numbers, in the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton outspent Donald Trump $132M vs $92M. In the ongoing Democratic Primary for the upcoming 2020 election, the TV ad spending through 12/3/2019 is as follows. The candidate's polling percentage at the same time is included in parenthesis. Steyer: $63.4 million (1%) Bloomberg: $37 million (<1%) Sanders: $6.7 million (15%) Buttigieg: $5.1 million (13%) Yang: $2.9 million (4%) Biden: $1.7 million (25%) Klobuchar: $1.3 million (3%) Bennet: $1 million (<1%) Gabbard: $1 million (1%) Warren: $926k (18%) Delaney: $662k (<1%) > On top of this, a bipartite political system can quite easily keep out candidates with views that are unpalatable to the rich and powerful (e.g. see how Bernie Sanders was treated by the Democratic establishment in 2016) You're right about this, but the Democratic Primaries are not a good example of a democratic institution (ironically) — it's a private club and they can make their own rules, for better or for worse. During the general election, the opposite happened; the rich and powerful overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton, and yet she still lost. > Individuals mostly rubber-stamp one of the two mainstream candidates. This is true, but has nothing to do with economic inequality. The two-party system is an artifact of the first-past-the-post voting system. Since ~1860, there have only been two mainstream candidates, and inequality has varied wildly in that time period: i.e. no correlation.

leto_ii 7y ago
In a society there are may levers (official or not, transparent or not) that the powerful can pull to get politics to lean their preferred way. This is true of all places and all times. The more power is concentrated, the easier it is for a very small group of individuals to have a very large impact on decision making. All the billions poured in campaign funding, lobbying etc. do actually buy a lot of influence albeit not in a direct, transparent way. The same billions can also sway public opinion through deliberate and persistent propaganda in support of certain view points and against others. Nowadays (and probably throughout most of modern history) you have to be highly committed and quite fanatical if you want to develop well grounded opinions that are not very much affected by propaganda. Most people don't have the time and resources for this -> most people are easily swayed by corporate propaganda.
- bhupy 7y ago
  Unless you provide data or empirical evidence, it's just a vague intuition. There's more than enough evidence to the contrary (as I've provided). At the end of the day, people act as individuals, and they have their beliefs and biases. For example, a small group of wealthy individuals can pour as much money as they want into pro-abortion propaganda, but it's unlikely that it will sway pro-lifers' opinions (especially evangelical Christians). Money doesn't influence opinions directly, it just affords you a platform to try and change someone's mind. The only way to change one's mind is if the message is compelling, and because the US requires broad buy-in for any democratic action, the message needs to be compelling to a broad audience, not just a small group of wealthy people.
  - leto_ii 7y ago
    You hardly provided more than enough evidence on the contrary. I can however point you to the work of Thomas Ferguson for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_theory_of_party_competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_theory_of_party_com...
    - bhupy 7y ago