3 ms·

Their average vs elite: > "[...] the fiftieth income percentile—that is, [...] the preferences of the average citizen" > "[...] “affluent” Americans at the ni

Their average vs elite: > "[...] the fiftieth income percentile—that is, [...] the preferences of the average citizen" > "[...] “affluent” Americans at the ninetieth income percentile can usefully be taken as proxies for the opinions of wealthy or very-high-income Americans [...] about $146,000 in annual household income" Their conclusion: > "This evidence indicates [...] policy is consistent with majority preferences roughly two-thirds of the time; that public policy changes in the same direction as collective preferences a similar two-thirds of the time [...]" > "Furthermore, the preferences of economic elites [...] have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do." They forgot to mention that income is a strong indicator of voter turn out[0]; "economic elites" vote in higher numbers with a gap of around 20-30% depending on source and year. Also, voter turnout is pretty low to start with at around 50-60%. So, now we have a better understanding of who actually votes instead of surveying the "average" citizen if they agree with policies as this study does compared to the policies favored by the "elite". The conclusion read with the added voter facts is: The higher the income the more likely to actually vote; Elected government officials work to create policies that favors the people who voted for them; People who turn out to vote in greater numbers have all the actual policy influence (they also currently have increasingly higher incomes than those who don't vote). Well no shit, they said it themselves "Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections [...]" sound like democracy is working. Therefore, if the "average" citizen surveyed here doesn't like the policy they are well within their rights to hold their representative responsible by getting themselves and 3 vote-eligible friends/family members to go vote. This especially includes the primaries. The "elite" do. [0] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23780231251338441 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23780231251338441

lapcat 2mo ago
> getting themselves and 3 vote-eligible friends/family members to go vote Vote for whom? Political campaigns are self-funded. Financially, it's difficult for nonwealthy persons to run for office and to raise campaign contributions from other nonwealthy persons. And if a candidate happens to gain prominence who runs against the interests of the wealthy, the wealthy are especially eager to throw tons of money at an opponent of the candidate in order to crush them. So of course the wealthy are more enthusiastic about voting for candidates who represent their interests.
- 1659447091 2mo ago
  > Vote for whom? You left off the "This especially includes the primaries." That is where it is decided to vote in/out the "establishment elite" and vote in/out a candidate with a policy message that resonates. See the 2008 democrat presidential primaries for an example. > if a candidate happens to gain prominence who runs against the interests of the wealthy, the wealthy are especially eager to throw tons of money at an opponent of the candidate in order to crush them. again, see the above for how voting and being engaged at the primary level is where policy is selected, staying engaged through the national election is how policy changes win. The people voting there are the ones who have a "far more independent impact upon policy change". If it's mostly high income voters voting, the final outcome is obvious
  - lapcat 2mo ago
    [dead]

lapcat 2mo ago

> getting themselves and 3 vote-eligible friends/family members to go vote Vote for whom? Political campaigns are self-funded. Financially, it's difficult for nonwealthy persons to run for office and to raise campaign contributions from other nonwealthy persons. And if a candidate happens to gain prominence who runs against the interests of the wealthy, the wealthy are especially eager to throw tons of money at an opponent of the candidate in order to crush them. So of course the wealthy are more enthusiastic about voting for candidates who represent their interests.

1659447091 2mo ago
> Vote for whom? You left off the "This especially includes the primaries." That is where it is decided to vote in/out the "establishment elite" and vote in/out a candidate with a policy message that resonates. See the 2008 democrat presidential primaries for an example. > if a candidate happens to gain prominence who runs against the interests of the wealthy, the wealthy are especially eager to throw tons of money at an opponent of the candidate in order to crush them. again, see the above for how voting and being engaged at the primary level is where policy is selected, staying engaged through the national election is how policy changes win. The people voting there are the ones who have a "far more independent impact upon policy change". If it's mostly high income voters voting, the final outcome is obvious
- lapcat 2mo ago
  [dead]