New Study: Popular Opinion Virtually Irrelevant in American Democracy

[Guthrie]

Keep Playing Partisan Policits:

New study confirms what other studies have already shown: Wealth controls American Democracy

Excerpt:

“When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy Nor do organized interest groups substitute for direct citizen influence, by embodying citizens’ will. Interest groups do have substantial independent impacts on policy, and a few groups (particularly labor unions) represent average citizens’ views reasonably well. But the interest group system as a whole does not. Over-all, net interest group alignments are not significantly related to the preferences of average citizens. The net alignments of the most influential, business oriented groups are negatively related to the average citizen’s wishes. So existing interest groups do not serve effectively as transmission belts for the wishes of the populace as a whole.

”

http://www.polisci.northwestern.edu...ricanPoliticsFINALforProduction6March2014.pdf

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

First you claim the government enacts laws based on popular consent, now you say the voice of the people is irrelevant?
Which is it?

 

[Guthrie]

First you claim the government enacts laws based on popular consent, now you say the voice of the people is irrelevant?
Which is it?

I never once said that. In debating strict vs narrow interpretation of the constitution I said if the majority of people are in favor of enacting a law then that should make the strict vs narrow debate irrelevant. That’s “in theory.” The fact that democracy doesn’t work period is another issue.



Further, I didn’t write the study above.

I am sorry, but when you troll randomly you tend to fail to get the whole question.



So to be clear, in theory the will of the people should prevail. In practice the will of elites prevail, just as the founders designed it and just as they said as they were designing it.



PS: Marcus don’t bother reading this study, its beyond your fox news cut and paste capacity.

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

Marcus Aurelius said: ↑
First you claim the government enacts laws based on popular consent, now you say the voice of the people is irrelevant?
Which is it?

I never once said that. In debating strict vs narrow interpretation of the constitution I said if the majority of people are in favor of enacting a law then that should make the strict vs narrow debate irrelevant. That’s “in theory.” The fact that democracy doesn’t work period is another issue.....

flat out lie, as usual with you.

Here, i'll 'remind' you...

The federal government has the authority to enact laws based on popular consent. If the consent was there, they certainly could...

Almost every post you make is a lie, as repeatedly demonstrated.

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

...I am sorry, but when you troll randomly you tend to fail to get the whole question....

Perhaps you should stop spinning so hard to cover your lies, and just man up once in a while.

 

[Colorforms]

Keep Playing Partisan Policits:

New study confirms what other studies have already shown: Wealth controls American Democracy

Excerpt:

“When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy Nor do organized interest groups substitute for direct citizen influence, by embodying citizens’ will. Interest groups do have substantial independent impacts on policy, and a few groups (particularly labor unions) represent average citizens’ views reasonably well. But the interest group system as a whole does not. Over-all, net interest group alignments are not significantly related to the preferences of average citizens. The net alignments of the most influential, business oriented groups are negatively related to the average citizen’s wishes. So existing interest groups do not serve effectively as transmission belts for the wishes of the populace as a whole.

”

http://www.polisci.northwestern.edu...ricanPoliticsFINALforProduction6March2014.pdf

Interest groups are a double edged sword. On the one hand, a interest group is one of the best ways to generate any interest in a large governmental body, such as a state or federal government. On the other hand, some special interests, such as labor unions, for membership, and are not inclined to follow the interest of their members.

I can not think of a better way to effect change, however, than joining an interest group.

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

Interest groups are a double edged sword. On the one hand, a interest group is one of the best ways to generate any interest in a large governmental body, such as a state or federal government. On the other hand, some special interests, such as labor unions, for membership, and are not inclined to follow the interest of their members.

I can not think of a better way to effect change, however, than joining an interest group.

He's not here. He ran away after I smacked him down (figuratively speaking of course) with his own post.

 

[Hmmmm]

flat out lie, as usual with you.

Here, i'll 'remind' you...


Almost every post you make is a lie, as repeatedly demonstrated.

What you said he said isn't what he said. From your post,

Marcus Aurelius said: "First you claim the government enacts laws based on popular consent ..." That is, they do.

Guthrie said: "The federal government has the authority to enact laws based on popular consent. If the consent was there, they certainly could..." I.e., they can.

Guthrie is saying they can where as you are saying that he says they do. What can be done isn't the same as what is done

 

[Guthrie]

He's not here. He ran away after I smacked him down (figuratively speaking of course) with his own post.

Anybody who has read one of my posts here over the last 5 months would never think that I think that the government makes laws based on popular consent.



I made the point yesterday that during the debate of Obama care a majority of Americans favored universal health care and yet it wasn’t passed because Obama sold out to the health care industry.



The person I was discussing this with responded “it doesn’t matter the federal government doesn’t have the right to monitor/provide health care absent a new amendment.”



I responded by saying that the government can make a law if the majority of Americans support it.



I was discussing my desire for this to be the case. If it were, I would see no problem with a law guaranteeing free health care absent an amendment.



Thus you are either to stupid to understand what we were discussing or simply being annoying and trolling me around to begin with.



Heres a simple question Marcus: What does statistically significant mean?

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

Anybody who has read one of my posts here over the last 5 months would never think that I think that the government makes laws based on popular consent....

Guthrie said: ↑
The federal government has the authority to enact laws based on popular consent.

You FAIL.

 

[Arkady]

flat out lie, as usual with you.

Here, i'll 'remind' you...


Almost every post you make is a lie, as repeatedly demonstrated.

Marcus, you have abysmal reading comprehension skills. Claiming that the government enacts laws based on popular consent is patently not the same as claiming that the government has the authority to enact laws based on popular consent.

 

[Arkady]

You FAIL.

Sorry, Marcus, but you're the failure here. You're taking two fundamentally different concepts --what an entity does, and what an entity has the authority to do-- and trying to conflate them. Who do you expect to fall for that?

 

[Guthrie]

Interest groups are a double edged sword. On the one hand, a interest group is one of the best ways to generate any interest in a large governmental body, such as a state or federal government. On the other hand, some special interests, such as labor unions, for membership, and are not inclined to follow the interest of their members.

I can not think of a better way to effect change, however, than joining an interest group.

Colorforom, read the study, I think you would enjoy it.

According to the study, unions were the best representation of peoples wishes.

 

[Colorforms]

Colorforom, read the study, I think you would enjoy it.

According to the study, unions were the best representation of peoples wishes.

I'll have to take a look. I am skeptical of that, however. After the unions were defanged in Wisconsin, they lost massive membership. Logic would dictate that if the unions truly represented the wishes of their members, they would have stayed.

But I'll check it out anyway.

 

[Guthrie]

I'll have to take a look. I am skeptical of that, however. After the unions were defanged in Wisconsin, they lost massive membership. Logic would dictate that if the unions truly represented the wishes of their members, they would have stayed.

But I'll check it out anyway.

Wisconsin is one state. That was one scenario.

Unions have their flaws no doubt. But by and large I see them as a force of good throughout American history. (Plus people fought like hell over that and you know that…in Wisconsin I mean)

Fair enough if you don’t.

Just so you know, I like discussing issues with you because you are informed and logical. We often disagree but I just wanted you to be aware of that.

 

[Colorforms]

Wisconsin is one state. That was one scenario.

Unions have their flaws no doubt. But by and large I see them as a force of good throughout American history. (Plus people fought like hell over that and you know that…in Wisconsin I mean)

Fair enough if you don’t.

Just so you know, I like discussing issues with you because you are informed and logical. We often disagree but I just wanted you to be aware of that.

I read through the study. It was very interesting. I was wondering how they were going to deal with data acquisition and the use of meta-research I think was the best option.

I disagree with the conclusion you drew about unions. My understanding was that they used the platform of labor unions in their meta-research because they concluded that it represented the desires of the average working individual. Not that unions actually performed actions that their membership agreed with. I didn't see that as being part of the scope of the research.

I do agree with the conclusions, however. Unfortunately, majoritarian democracy just isn't as influential as I would have hoped. However, in a way, I think that is why we were set up as a representative system, to keep the majority from overwhelming the minority.

Guthrie, sometimes I find you irrational, but lately I think we have come to the understanding that we are both here for more than just picking on each other. I have never been afraid of a rational debate, especially when it disagrees with my views. I always found you to be an intelligent poster.

 

[Guthrie]

a

I read through the study. It was very interesting. I was wondering how they were going to deal with data acquisition and the use of meta-research I think was the best option.

I disagree with the conclusion you drew about unions. My understanding was that they used the platform of labor unions in their meta-research because they concluded that it represented the desires of the average working individual. Not that unions actually performed actions that their membership agreed with. I didn't see that as being part of the scope of the research.

I do agree with the conclusions, however.

Guthrie, sometimes I find you irrational, but lately I think we have come to the understanding that we are both here for more than just picking on each other. I have never been afraid of a rational debate, especially when it disagrees with my views. I always found you to be an intelligent poster.

agreed

 

[Barbella]

Keep Playing Partisan Policits:

New study confirms what other studies have already shown: Wealth controls American Democracy

Excerpt:

“When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy Nor do organized interest groups substitute for direct citizen influence, by embodying citizens’ will. Interest groups do have substantial independent impacts on policy, and a few groups (particularly labor unions) represent average citizens’ views reasonably well. But the interest group system as a whole does not. Over-all, net interest group alignments are not significantly related to the preferences of average citizens. The net alignments of the most influential, business oriented groups are negatively related to the average citizen’s wishes. So existing interest groups do not serve effectively as transmission belts for the wishes of the populace as a whole.

”

http://www.polisci.northwestern.edu...ricanPoliticsFINALforProduction6March2014.pdf

Is anybody over the age of 14 who even THINKS his/her opinion matters, still alive? Hmmmm.....

I'm being semi-serious here... change the age to about 25, and stipulate that he/she can speak/write English... then I'm dead serious. NO ONE over 25, with even a rudimentary understanding of our language, could POSSIBLY be that naive... can they?

 

[Colorforms]

Wisconsin is one state. That was one scenario.

Unions have their flaws no doubt. But by and large I see them as a force of good throughout American history. (Plus people fought like hell over that and you know that…in Wisconsin I mean)

Fair enough if you don’t.

Just so you know, I like discussing issues with you because you are informed and logical. We often disagree but I just wanted you to be aware of that.

I think that at one time they were essential. Were it not for labor unions, we would be literally living at work and weekends would be non-existent. But, like anything that is allowed to get too big and unwieldy, unions started to rot.

With current labor laws and accepted standards of practice by most companies, I see the larger unions as nothing more than vehicles used to extort companies. However, at some of the businesses that I have had the displeasure of working, a union would have done them some good.

Government unions, on the other hand, were never a good idea.

 

[Guthrie]

Is anybody over the age of 14 who even THINKS his/her opinion matters, still alive? Hmmmm.....

I'm being semi-serious here... change the age to about 25, and stipulate that he/she can speak/write English... then I'm dead serious. NO ONE over 25, with even a rudimentary understanding of our language, could POSSIBLY be that naive... can they?

I think labor unions do more good then you thunk. But football is on. I'll start a thread on this tomorrow