4 ms·

The detail of the paper, rather than the headline, actually undercuts most of the traditional conspiracy theories. The views of the 90th percentile "elite" are

The detail of the paper, rather than the headline, actually undercuts most of the traditional conspiracy theories. The views of the 90th percentile "elite" are highly correlated with those of the median voter, and largely uncorrelated with business lobby groups. Paper is at: https://sci-hub.tf/10.1017/s1537592714001595 https://sci-hub.tf/10.1017/s1537592714001595 Another quirk is that it appears even supermajorities often don't get their way (the graphs show that if 80-90% of the elite favour a policy, it is enacted a little under half the time. Which is better than the probability if 80-90% of the median voters favour it, but still means they usually don't get their way...) The headline finding is their model which essentially suggests that the median voter doesn't have much influence except where their views align with wealthier people and/or interest groups, but the thing is, they usually do align with one or other and none of the groups actually get their way that often! It'd also be interesting to see the findings disaggregated by administration and by policy area. It is not difficult to imagine that some of the most consistent disagreements between the median American and the elite American regards issues like upper tax brackets (which elites pay and median Americans don't). To what extent politicians are seeking the favour of 90th percentile Americans when they (sometimes) don't raise upper income tax brackets even when the average American supports it and to what extent they are simply pleasing themselves and following their preferred economic theory are open questions. Disaggregation would also help evaluate other theories, like one of American's political parties being aligned with the elite, or the reverse causation hypothesis where in a political environment where proposed change often fails, the 90th percentile American is [incidentally] happier with the status quo.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Zababa 5y ago
> The detail of the paper, rather than the headline, actually undercuts most of the traditional conspiracy theories. > Another quirk is that it appears even supermajorities often don't get their way (the graphs show that if 80-90% of the elite favour a policy, it is enacted a little under half the time. Which is better than the probability if 80-90% of the median voters favour it, but still means they usually don't get their way...) I think those two things oppose each others.
- notahacker 5y ago
  If political deadlock and politicians having priorities of their own means even supermajorities of what the study calls the elite don't get their way, I'm not sure it helps the conspiracy theory about the power of the elite. (I mean, it leaves open claims about specific billionaires and more bizarre theories about shapeshifting lizards, freemasons or pizza shops, but they were outside the scope of the study) The second point does lend support to the argument that politicians frequently fail to deliver what the public want, but that's less a conspiracy theory and more established fact :)
imtringued 5y ago
I've figured this out less than a year ago. It's just a uncaring world full of randomness. When it comes to surveillance, a lot of people are easily swayed and convinced as long as the ones who are under surveillance are the "bad guys". "I've got nothing to hide" is the go to argument. When it comes to unfair economic policies, a lot of voters genuinely believe in small state policies. A common policy package is known as neoliberalism. With housing, a lot of home owners are politically active and they often want to slow down change and avoid an underwater mortgage. What happens is that they vote for short sighted policies that benefit them over the short term, without realizing that they aren't the only ones benefiting. They vote in various things that restrict housing supply or they freeze property taxes. What they didn't think of, is that they prevented residential development but they left commercial developers free to whatever they wanted because they provide jobs. Yet when you have too many jobs, more and more people will come to your city making housing worse. Freezing property taxes helps landlords who never sell their property or speculators who don't intend on actually renting out the unit. The average voter gets hurt by the way they vote but they don't realize it. Lots of unintended consequences but that doesn't mean there are people out there conspiring against you. There are lots of greedy people looking out for their own self interest who don't care about others, but that describes pretty much everyone.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Zababa 5y ago

> The detail of the paper, rather than the headline, actually undercuts most of the traditional conspiracy theories. > Another quirk is that it appears even supermajorities often don't get their way (the graphs show that if 80-90% of the elite favour a policy, it is enacted a little under half the time. Which is better than the probability if 80-90% of the median voters favour it, but still means they usually don't get their way...) I think those two things oppose each others.

notahacker 5y ago
If political deadlock and politicians having priorities of their own means even supermajorities of what the study calls the elite don't get their way, I'm not sure it helps the conspiracy theory about the power of the elite. (I mean, it leaves open claims about specific billionaires and more bizarre theories about shapeshifting lizards, freemasons or pizza shops, but they were outside the scope of the study) The second point does lend support to the argument that politicians frequently fail to deliver what the public want, but that's less a conspiracy theory and more established fact :)

imtringued 5y ago

I've figured this out less than a year ago. It's just a uncaring world full of randomness. When it comes to surveillance, a lot of people are easily swayed and convinced as long as the ones who are under surveillance are the "bad guys". "I've got nothing to hide" is the go to argument. When it comes to unfair economic policies, a lot of voters genuinely believe in small state policies. A common policy package is known as neoliberalism. With housing, a lot of home owners are politically active and they often want to slow down change and avoid an underwater mortgage. What happens is that they vote for short sighted policies that benefit them over the short term, without realizing that they aren't the only ones benefiting. They vote in various things that restrict housing supply or they freeze property taxes. What they didn't think of, is that they prevented residential development but they left commercial developers free to whatever they wanted because they provide jobs. Yet when you have too many jobs, more and more people will come to your city making housing worse. Freezing property taxes helps landlords who never sell their property or speculators who don't intend on actually renting out the unit. The average voter gets hurt by the way they vote but they don't realize it. Lots of unintended consequences but that doesn't mean there are people out there conspiring against you. There are lots of greedy people looking out for their own self interest who don't care about others, but that describes pretty much everyone.