“Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented. A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues. Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism. “
My takeaway from this article was the quote from the two republican senators that totally mirrors the blind imperialism of the current democratic administration, putting the folly of any real voter choice in this country in stark relief.
With 2022 just around the corner, what exactly are our real options for change? Bubkis. Squat. Nada. Zilch. Zero.
Oh, we can tweak tax policy here and there; we can have less wokeness in public discourse; we can redefine who gets what regarding public assistance, but the overall trajectory of empire remains on course.
America has some of the lowest voter participation of any developed country, and those who don't vote tell interviewers the main reason is they feel that voting will make no difference in their lives. We're told by our media that this amounts to apathy on their part instead of what it is: a totally valid assessment of our politics' actual priorities.
I imagine elites are fine with this lack of participation, and for the others who split their votes between democrats and republicans, I'd have to imagine that elites are just fine with that too.
While it's certainly true that US elections are pretty rotten, it's also certainly true that they are vastly superior to Saudi Arabia's (non-elections). The relatively good deal US citizens get is almost certainly largely due to their enfranchisement (which strongly correlates with good treatment in general). In going for too much and making statements like this you compromise your ability to effectively criticize things like US press coverage of Venezuelan elections while denigrating a thing which has considerable value for the average citizen.
The truth about the efficiency of various voting systems in available as a chart showing bayesian regret ranges for different systems at the bottom of this page: https://rangevoting.org/BayRegsFig.html
. Saudi Arabia's system is effectively "random winner", which tends to produce considerably worse results than even the plurality voting system used in the US. The fact that the world's greatest current atrocity (Yemen) was initiated and continues to be led by a young random winner thug is consistent with the estimate provided there.
“While it's certainly true that US elections are pretty rotten”, it's also certainly true that they are vastly superior to Saudi Arabia....”
Please consider that once we start using relativism to justify anything, we can always claim that the penultimate evil is “vastly superior” to the ultimate evil. But aren't both are still evil?
If we are trapped 50 feet underwater and running out of air and the Saudi solution raises us ten feet toward the surface while the U.S. system raises us twenty feet toward the surface, the U.S. system is, I suppose, twice as good. But we still drown.
Let’s agree “it is certainly true that US elections are pretty rotten.” If so, then I think we can also agree that for the US to assert that another’s country’s elections are flawed is an absurd hypocrisy that cannot be made with a straight face except by a certifiable imperialist.
So we agree about the US voting system being rotten. I guess I didn't explicitly say it but I agree that criticizing e.g. Venezuela is hypocritical. But I stand by statement that saying the US system is as bad as Saudi Arabia's is ridiculous and alienates people.
No but it's not hard to imagine who they are. With Saudi Arabia in particular you're lumping the US in with one of the most notoriously non-democratic countries on earth, doesn't this seem likely to turn off a lot of potential new readers?
Serious yep. It *is* a relatively good deal most US citizens get, and this is the main reason the left and the anti-imperialist movement has always had trouble making headway. Their opponents are good at co-opting people and they're bad at recognizing how much it's happening and how well it works. In general enfranchisement even at plurality voting level is really good for you and anyone who says otherwise is lying.
About Caitlin's readers you may well be right. But personally I'd like to see her readership expand by 100x, and for that larger group you're probably wrong.
"2nd grade graph" the guy who made it is Princeton PhD math and you should look at the rest of his pages.
MBS -- if he's only a tool, he's a really really enthusiastic one. The Economist and other western propaganda organs have at times called Yemen "pointless" which seems like a little more than they would likely say if they really were driving the whole thing, rather than just indulging MBS.
So if I've successfully navigated through all your smarty pants clutter, you believe Cailtin undercuts herself by denigrating our wonderful electorial process, the same one that a majority of Americans have stopped participating in because they see no value in doing so? That one? The one that allowed a 20 year war in Afghanistan to rumble on year after year regardless of which party occupied the White House?
Your learned assessments seem to allow little room for the boatloads of propaganda churned out domestically by our alphabet agencies and the complete corporate control of our media. If all is so hunky-dory in voterland, why are these actions even necessary?
Your concern for Caitlin's readership is touching, but as Mark Twain noted, "There are lies, damnable lies, and statistics."
Yes I think she does with respect to a broad audience. I might be wrong but it bugs me at any rate, so I suspect that it alienates others who know less about e.g. US foreign policy even more. I'm sorry if this offends you. I could be wrong.
Your examples of the uselessness of voting in the US all seem to center on foreign policy. In this sphere you're absolutely correct, but that's kind of my point: disenfranchised people get far far worse treatment from the empire than enfranchised ones. You're of course correct that propaganda is used extensively, but co-opting is too, and the latter gets comparatively little attention. I think the problem is that it's hard to attack the state for making people rich and comfortable in a popular way, and hard to acknowledge while arguing that the state deliberately impoverishes people. But the co-opt is in a way as evil as the propaganda, since it effectively makes citizens partners in the murder of foreigners. So it would be nice to find a way to discuss it.
“Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented. A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues. Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism. “
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
My takeaway from this article was the quote from the two republican senators that totally mirrors the blind imperialism of the current democratic administration, putting the folly of any real voter choice in this country in stark relief.
With 2022 just around the corner, what exactly are our real options for change? Bubkis. Squat. Nada. Zilch. Zero.
Oh, we can tweak tax policy here and there; we can have less wokeness in public discourse; we can redefine who gets what regarding public assistance, but the overall trajectory of empire remains on course.
America has some of the lowest voter participation of any developed country, and those who don't vote tell interviewers the main reason is they feel that voting will make no difference in their lives. We're told by our media that this amounts to apathy on their part instead of what it is: a totally valid assessment of our politics' actual priorities.
I imagine elites are fine with this lack of participation, and for the others who split their votes between democrats and republicans, I'd have to imagine that elites are just fine with that too.
No doubt
While it's certainly true that US elections are pretty rotten, it's also certainly true that they are vastly superior to Saudi Arabia's (non-elections). The relatively good deal US citizens get is almost certainly largely due to their enfranchisement (which strongly correlates with good treatment in general). In going for too much and making statements like this you compromise your ability to effectively criticize things like US press coverage of Venezuelan elections while denigrating a thing which has considerable value for the average citizen.
The truth about the efficiency of various voting systems in available as a chart showing bayesian regret ranges for different systems at the bottom of this page: https://rangevoting.org/BayRegsFig.html
. Saudi Arabia's system is effectively "random winner", which tends to produce considerably worse results than even the plurality voting system used in the US. The fact that the world's greatest current atrocity (Yemen) was initiated and continues to be led by a young random winner thug is consistent with the estimate provided there.
More details on bayesian regret:
https://rangevoting.org/BayRegExec.html
https://rangevoting.org/BayRegDum.html
Britton Leo Kerin, you wrote:
“While it's certainly true that US elections are pretty rotten”, it's also certainly true that they are vastly superior to Saudi Arabia....”
Please consider that once we start using relativism to justify anything, we can always claim that the penultimate evil is “vastly superior” to the ultimate evil. But aren't both are still evil?
If we are trapped 50 feet underwater and running out of air and the Saudi solution raises us ten feet toward the surface while the U.S. system raises us twenty feet toward the surface, the U.S. system is, I suppose, twice as good. But we still drown.
Let’s agree “it is certainly true that US elections are pretty rotten.” If so, then I think we can also agree that for the US to assert that another’s country’s elections are flawed is an absurd hypocrisy that cannot be made with a straight face except by a certifiable imperialist.
So we agree about the US voting system being rotten. I guess I didn't explicitly say it but I agree that criticizing e.g. Venezuela is hypocritical. But I stand by statement that saying the US system is as bad as Saudi Arabia's is ridiculous and alienates people.
Could please point out these alienated people for me? Thanks.
No but it's not hard to imagine who they are. With Saudi Arabia in particular you're lumping the US in with one of the most notoriously non-democratic countries on earth, doesn't this seem likely to turn off a lot of potential new readers?
LOL, thank God for trolls.
Serious yep. It *is* a relatively good deal most US citizens get, and this is the main reason the left and the anti-imperialist movement has always had trouble making headway. Their opponents are good at co-opting people and they're bad at recognizing how much it's happening and how well it works. In general enfranchisement even at plurality voting level is really good for you and anyone who says otherwise is lying.
About Caitlin's readers you may well be right. But personally I'd like to see her readership expand by 100x, and for that larger group you're probably wrong.
"2nd grade graph" the guy who made it is Princeton PhD math and you should look at the rest of his pages.
MBS -- if he's only a tool, he's a really really enthusiastic one. The Economist and other western propaganda organs have at times called Yemen "pointless" which seems like a little more than they would likely say if they really were driving the whole thing, rather than just indulging MBS.
So if I've successfully navigated through all your smarty pants clutter, you believe Cailtin undercuts herself by denigrating our wonderful electorial process, the same one that a majority of Americans have stopped participating in because they see no value in doing so? That one? The one that allowed a 20 year war in Afghanistan to rumble on year after year regardless of which party occupied the White House?
Your learned assessments seem to allow little room for the boatloads of propaganda churned out domestically by our alphabet agencies and the complete corporate control of our media. If all is so hunky-dory in voterland, why are these actions even necessary?
Your concern for Caitlin's readership is touching, but as Mark Twain noted, "There are lies, damnable lies, and statistics."
Yes I think she does with respect to a broad audience. I might be wrong but it bugs me at any rate, so I suspect that it alienates others who know less about e.g. US foreign policy even more. I'm sorry if this offends you. I could be wrong.
Your examples of the uselessness of voting in the US all seem to center on foreign policy. In this sphere you're absolutely correct, but that's kind of my point: disenfranchised people get far far worse treatment from the empire than enfranchised ones. You're of course correct that propaganda is used extensively, but co-opting is too, and the latter gets comparatively little attention. I think the problem is that it's hard to attack the state for making people rich and comfortable in a popular way, and hard to acknowledge while arguing that the state deliberately impoverishes people. But the co-opt is in a way as evil as the propaganda, since it effectively makes citizens partners in the murder of foreigners. So it would be nice to find a way to discuss it.