I believe that the real purpose of political advertising is not to inform the public about this candidate or that, but to overload the audience to the point where they’re burnt-out and uninterested in voting. The fewer individuals who actually show up and vote, the more the outcome depends on more dependable/manageable fractions of voters.
Study: American policy exclusively reflects desires of the rich; citizens' groups largely irrelevant
5 Likes
Not necessarily every possible candidate, only the ones actually allowed to really run.
2 Likes
We need a constitutional convention and an amendment that says that money isn’t speech and that electioneering must be publicly funded (what could be a better use of the first $50 in tax collected, than choosing who gets to spend the rest?).
State legislatures (which are significantly more responsive to popular opinion than the federal legislature) can call a convention with 2/3rds in support.
This actually isn’t as hard as it sounds. If you got 20% of the population in 2/3rds of the states to sign a petition stating that they won’t reelect any candidate who doesn’t vote for a convention before the next election, it would happen before the next election.
3 Likes
Someone should get on to that!
I think it’s worth reading the study itself. For convenience, take a look at the chart on page 29, which I’ve seen posted on Twitter, which demonstrates that there’s a strong correlation between the preferences of the wealthy and actual policies, but no correlation, positive or negative, between the aggregate preferences of individual voters of median income, and actual policies.
The part I was most curious about was the distinction the study authors made between two of the four models of influence on policy: Elite Domination, in which policies are more or less direct expressions of the will of the wealthiest; and Biased Pluralism, in which policies are determined by competition between organized interest groups, with a strong bias towards interest groups that represent the interests of elites. The study authors don’t seem to compare these models directly, but conclude the truth seems to lie somewhere between them.
The study authors suggest that Biased Pluralism may be understood as encompassing Marxist ideas of class conflict; it implies that organizations that represent the interests of the majority (e.g., labor unions) sometimes prevail against organizations that represent the interest of the elites (e.g., business lobbies) in setting policy. Elite Domination would imply that, to put it simply, the rich always win, we’re screwed, and there’s nothing we can do about it.
I have the uncomfortable feeling that the evidence for the latter was stronger than the evidence for the former, but the study authors didn’t want to acknowledge such a dismal conclusion. On the other hand, their study covered only the last 20 years of US federal policy, and arguably, popular organizations have been weak and demoralized through this period, but could potentially be more effective.
1 Like
Okay, then I’ll have the beer brats. Mmmmm, either way.
Larry Lessig’s (search bb for him) org is called Rootstrikers. They’re on
it, you should check them out and volunteer what you can. Unite or die, as
the man said…
1 Like
I always thought that it was Robocop, and not Wall Street, the film that better reflected 80’s US.
2 Likes
Here’s a thought experiment: Take each of those nearly 2K policy choices, and figure out a better outcome for most people. (It wouldn’t need to be perfect, just something that doesn’t hurt the many for the good of the few).
Now distill and streamline the list to something about the size of the declaration of independence.
This document then becomes your political blueprint for reform, or starting a new party, or whatever other form of trouble you have in mind.
There’s just one catch in this experiment- you can’t spend money on a political arms race. Anything the Koch brothers can do, you’ll have to do better with chewing gum and baling wire. If you can’t outspend them, you have to outrun them. (make up your own mind what that looks like. a lot of people think it means rioting in the street, I’m more optimistic)
Profit!
5 Likes
well if ordinary people want their views to count, they should become the richest 0.1% of society, then the system of government will listen.
I’m pretty sure the 0.1% still has to get a lot of stuff cleared by the 0.01% first though. 
2 Likes
Remy Danton says, “What’s good for sancorp is good for 'merica”
Is there a country anywhere on this planet where money doesn’t talk?
1 Like
The real question is why people keep supporting giving the rich more power, under the guise of regulation. It’s always interesting to me to see the extensive agreement on this site with studies like this one, and then people turn right around and do things like call for the FCC to “regulate” cable providers more extensively, or to restrict campaign speech. Isn’t it obvious that the regime would act to its own benefit? Why would you trust the people in charge to give up their power willingly?
1 Like
I understand the wishful longing for justice, but yeah…you’re probably wrong!
1 Like
I’d be outraged by the conclusions of this study, but it’s been plainly, in-your-face obvious that this is how things work since the time of Nixon.
Now, short of complete global economic collapse, how do we fix it?
5 Likes
They could also get off their buts and vote, and do so less stupidly.
Seriously, we aren’t so far gone yet that that would not entirely fix the situation in half a dozen years.
you mean my vote doesn’t matter? I’m not rich enough?
Big surprise.
But hey, since your vote is a joke anyway, why not vote on something other than Dem or Rep
5 Likes
I don’t know that that’s a problem, so much as a potential conclusion. If your hypothesis is correct, that at times where labor as a stronger presence policy better reflects the desires of the public at larger, that just adds a dimension.
2 Likes
