Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy

[Masada]

Not politically viable.

That's what they want you to think.

That's the people politicians are listening to - people who give them money. That's what they care about because that's what gets them re-elected.... and in the end that's what shapes the policies the politicians push through and support and it's what ends up shaping the country. Not the votes of the people, but the money of the rich.

The political funding angle helps. But I think the cultural aspect of being surrounded by lots of other rich peopel (sorry middle class people) is probably the more important.

 

[El_Machinae]

That's just what they want you to think.

Maybe. Did 'they' create a world where I didn't want to endorse mass executions?
Do you really think a few thousands of murderous mobs would make things better?

 

[Tahuti]

Like in most democracies, people are too ignorant of politics and defer major decisions to corporate toadies. No surprise here.

The USA is a free democracy: That it is unable to serve the interests of its citizens can largely be pinpointed in the inability of the general public to vote the right people into office.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I can't find a list comparable to what they have, but off the top of my head probably the ACLU, the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, ASPCA, Planned Parenthood, Heritage Foundation, and Christians United for Israel are mass based.

The ACLU is a particularly glaring omission.

 

[El_Machinae]

Is the ACLU a lobbying group? I thought they mostly sued.

 

[Masada]

Like in most democracies, people are too ignorant of politics and defer major decisions to corporate toadies. No surprise here.

People are ignorant of politics because there's no point caring about something that will screw that whatever happens.

The USA is a free democracy: That it is unable to serve the interests of its citizens can largely be pinpointed in the inability of the general public to vote the right people into office.

Who are the right people in this scenario? And why haven't people voted them in?

 

[Crezth]

Maybe. Did 'they' create a world where I didn't want to endorse mass executions?
Do you really think a few thousands of murderous mobs would make things better?

What does that have to do with whether or not it's politically viable? I mean, it's happened before.

Would it make things better? Well, I can't say. But you asked for solutions and I offered one.

Unless, of course, you were just trying to make a point about how this is simply The Way Things Are, and there's nothing to be done about it and no point in fussing. But not even I am cynical enough to believe that!

 

[El_Machinae]

Unless, of course, you were just trying to make a point about how this is simply The Way Things Are, and there's nothing to be done about it and no point in fussing.

Nope, but I think people are only going to fuss a bit anyway.

 

[Tahuti]

People are ignorant of politics because there's no point caring about something that will screw that whatever happens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_information_voter

Who are the right people in this scenario? And why haven't people voted them in?

I wouldn't know for sure. At least I do not vote on people because of their attractiveness or eating hamburgers at McDonalds.

 

[warpus]

Like in most democracies, people are too ignorant of politics and defer major decisions to corporate toadies. No surprise here.

The USA is a free democracy: That it is unable to serve the interests of its citizens can largely be pinpointed in the inability of the general public to vote the right people into office.

They have a first past the post system that leads to 2 parties and their 2 main parties are corrupt. Who are they supposed to vote for?

 

[Tahuti]

They have a first past the post system that leads to 2 parties and their 2 main parties are corrupt. Who are they supposed to vote for?

That's not a panacea. Up here in the Netherlands we have a directly proportional system and it did not prevent the popularity of Geert Wilders. If anything, lack of a first past the post system is what has allowed radicals like him to become influential in the first place, which is why the party most opposed to Wilders (D66) actually calls for reintroduction of the district system.

At this point, I favour abolishing our house of representatives and only retain the first chamber which is indirectly elected.

 

[Harv]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_information_voter

I wouldn't know for sure. At least I do not vote on people because of their attractiveness or eating hamburgers at McDonalds.

Or because the name's Johnson. Do you remember the movie "Distinguished Gentleman?" While attempting to keep my tone neutral, I think the definition for low-information voter should be expanded.

Say Group A funds Party B who has the general support of Voting Block C. Party B will represent Group A ahead of Voting Block C. Voting Block C will continue to vote for Party B as long as Party B continues to deliver the talking points that resonate with Voting Block C. Funding is more immediately dependent on Party B representing Group A, since money pays bills.

Out of 100 Senators, how often do they vote with the party, and how often do they vote with the state? How do voting records work out in the House of Representives? Do the representitives represent the constituents or the party, and therefore the financial backers of the party?

My argument in a nutshell is money is seen as more important than votes.

If you are a part of Voting Block Z, then it is easier to see that Party B represnets Group A and not Voting Block C. So you see Voting Block C as made up of primarily low information voters.

Regarding the original post, I think a plutocracy (disguised as a Constitutional Republic) would be more accurate than an oligarchy. This is because there are several factions, and their power fluctuates based on which party is in power.

 

[Flying Pig]

They have a first past the post system that leads to 2 parties and their 2 main parties are corrupt. Who are they supposed to vote for?

Even then, any system decays into an oligarchy. However many parties you have, as long as having education and an aristocratic manner behind you and money and time to spare will help you win an election, there will always be only a small subset of the population standing for office, let alone holding it. Don't underestimate the power of 'not for the likes of me' thinking.

 

[Tahuti]

My argument in a nutshell is money is seen as more important than votes.

The problem is that people vote on money. They can just as easily vote on a candidate that isn't bought by money or not vote at all. People apparently vote for the monied interests over and over again.

You have exercised your democratic rights against you. It is your responsibility to vote responsibly and if you vote for monied interests because the media told you it would be alright and you allowed yourself to be tricked, you deserve what you get. Better luck next time.

 

[Oruc]

Maybe. Did 'they' create a world where I didn't want to endorse mass executions?
Do you really think a few thousands of murderous mobs would make things better?

A maoist told me the idea that every death is a tragedy is bourgeois thinking.

 

[Flying Pig]

The problem is that people vote on money. They can just as easily vote on a candidate that isn't bought by money or not vote at all. People apparently vote for the monied interests over and over again.

Well, the candidate with the most money is also the one with the best PR, the best speechwriters and the best advisers. Should we not vote for the best-looking candidate, because he's obviously better-paid? More to the point, should we set nothing in store by the fact that the country's industries support a candidate? Supporting the party that nobody is willing to pay to assist to win seems like a recipe for disaster: corporations, after all, have an interest in a healthy economy and prosperous consumers. To me, the problem is more that people are allowed to donate in large quantities without sufficient accountability - what people really need is the information to see whose money is going where.

 

[Phrossack]

I think there's an upper limit on the size of any efficient community. Frankly, there are too many people and groups in the US with no common interests or ties that are constantly pulling in opposite directions while the plutocracy wins at everyone else's expense. No matter what policy is enacted or decision made, at least half the country will always be up in arms about it. If we're going to try to give as many people what they want as possible and truly represent everyone, the country may have to split up into different parts that respectfully go their separate ways.

But that's not viable, so my solutions are to either emigrate or disappear into some rural area and quietly live out my days minding my own business.

 

[Core Imposter]

You have to go after the politicians to fix the problem.

A hotel executive and Democratic fundraiser has pleaded guilty in New York to witness tampering and conspiracy to evade campaign finance laws.

Sant Singh Chatwal appeared Thursday in federal court in Brooklyn. The candidates were not identified.

Chatwal had raised at least $100,000 for Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign against Barack Obama.

"Mr Chatwal deeply regrets his actions and accepts full responsibility for the consequences. He looks forward to resolving this personal matter," a spokesperson for Chatwal told CNBC on Thursday.

According to the Justice Department, Chatwal made more than $180,000 in donations to three candidates via straw donors, who were then reimbursed.

"There is no allegation that the candidates participated in, or were aware of, Chatwal's scheme," the DOJ said.


No allegation against the pols indeed.

 

[s0nny80y]

...speaking of digital divide, Bush Sr.'s electronic device points toward True north, until Jr. kills daddy.

Did you know Neil Armstrong has yet to be revived?

 

[BenitoChavez]

The problem is that people vote on money. They can just as easily vote on a candidate that isn't bought by money or not vote at all. People apparently vote for the monied interests over and over again.

Except that the candidates without the money aren't able to do the things necessary to win an election such as pay for advertisements, pay for travel, hire qualified speechwriters, etc. I could run for president but since I'm relatively poor I won't be able to get my name out there as much and not get as many votes.

No matter what policy is enacted or decision made, at least half the country will always be up in arms about it. If we're going to try to give as many people what they want as possible and truly represent everyone, the country may have to split up into different parts that respectfully go their separate ways.

That's why the US constitution divided governing power between the federal and state governments. However, it seems the power of the federal government seems to have extended beyond what was originally intended.