Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The US is not a democracy but an oligarchy, study concludes (2014)

upi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 87 posts

Re: The US is not a democracy but an oligarchy, study concludes (2014)

#71

Post by jmclnx »

lapcat wrote: post #26
t-3 wrote: post #17

Representative democracy is by nature oligachic. Practically, there was no other way to organize a large state until modern communications technology, so that's very understandable, the critical issue is that the US is becoming less and less democratic and more oligarchic over time while we are more and more capable of democracy (instantaneous communication across the world, very fast travel, universal education, etc…

"All politics is local", which used to be true until perhaps 50 years ago, was the only thing that kept the oligarchs in check. Now the oligarchs can use modern communications technology to organize and consolidate power at the national and even international level. Consider how Rupert Murdoch for example was able to spread his political propaganda from Australia all the way to the US and the UK. Consider also how Je…

I agree with this, when Reagan pushed through his tax cuts for the rich and Union Busting, the US started moving away from a republic.

Since then, more policies were put in place to give the very rich more power and Citizens United was when the US became 100% a oligarchy.

At this point, I think Nov 2026 and its aftermath will prove your vote does not matter at all. To me, this red vs blue are just 2 groups of very rich people fighting for control of the US. No matter who wins that fight, people of the US will still continue moving towards serfdom.

But there is a big equalizer coming down the road, Climate Change. In 50 to 100 years, even if the rich creates walled gardens, the life style of their descendants will eventually become the same as everyone else. That is if they are lucky.

Re: The US is not a democracy but an oligarchy, study concludes (2014)

#72

Post by cucumber3732842 »

lapcat wrote: post #57
cucumber3732842 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>because everyone recognizes that a monopoly needs to be strictly regulated and/or broken up And who's gonna do that when the government has a monopoly?

> the government has a monopoly What do you mean exactly? This seems a little too vague.

Breaking up a monopoly requires some external entity that has power over the monopoly. There is no such entity for government.

So as bad as a two party government is one party would likely be way worse.

Re: The US is not a democracy but an oligarchy, study concludes (2014)

#73

Post by lapcat »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #72
lapcat wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the government has a monopoly What do you mean exactly? This seems a little too vague.

Breaking up a monopoly requires some external entity that has power over the monopoly. There is no such entity for government. So as bad as a two party government is one party would likely be way worse.

I said, comparing a political monopoly to an economic monopoly, "In the same way, the obvious solution to a one-party system is to overthrow the government"

The "external entity" is the people in revolution against the government. This was how the US itself was founded, in revolution against the existing monarchy.

Re: The US is not a democracy but an oligarchy, study concludes (2014)

#74

Post by cybert »

lapcat wrote: post #60
hn_submit wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a direct outcrop of the winner-takes-all electoral district system which forces parties to merge to have a chance at winning. I personally find it an undemocratic, archaic and meritless system.

> This is a direct outcrop of the winner-takes-all electoral district system which forces parties to merge to have a chance at winning. I'm not sure this is true. When the highest vote-getter wins, despite the lack of an absolute majority, that gives a better chance to third-party candidates in a multi-candidate election. The reason third parties fare so poorly in the US is that the two major parties have a duopoly o…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

It absolutely is true.

Re: The US is not a democracy but an oligarchy, study concludes (2014)

#77

Post by lapcat »

cybert wrote: post #74
lapcat wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a direct outcrop of the winner-takes-all electoral district system which forces parties to merge to have a chance at winning. I'm not sure this is true. When the highest vote-getter wins, despite the lack of an absolute majority, that gives a better chance to third-party candidates in a multi-candidate election. The reason third parties fare so poorly in the US is that the two major parties have a duopoly o…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law It absolutely is true.

> In political science, Duverger's law holds that in political systems with single-member districts and the first-past-the-post voting system, as in, for example, the United States and United Kingdom, only two powerful political parties tend to control power every election cycle. Citizens do not vote for small parties because they fear splitting votes away from the major party and allowing their opponents to win an election.

There are two parts here. Nobody disputes the first, empirical part, the dominance of the existing duopoly. The second part, however, is a questionable causal claim. It's astonishing to me that this entire article can fail to mention even once campaign fundraising or news media coverage.

Voter awareness of third parties and third party candidates is minimal, because nearly all of the paid political advertising and free news media coverage is about the duopolist parties. This fundamental plight, not the voting system, consigns third parties to the "spoiler" role. A third party candidate is not a spoiler if they have a legitimate chance to win, which in a first-past-the-post system doesn't even require 50% of the vote. They're only a spoiler if they have no legitimate chance to win. In a 3 candidate race, 34% wins over 33% and 33%. The more the vote is split between multiple candidates, the less it takes to win.

The article mentions Ross Perot, which supports my point. To me, the most interesting question is not the % of the popular vote or electoral college he received. Rather, the question is how did Perot break through and become the most successful third-party Presidential candidate in recent times? And the answer is his money, which he used to finance TV informercials and get his message out to the public. As a reward for spending money, Perot was invited to the news media debates along with the duopoly candidates.

Sadly, Perot kind of self-destructed, wilted under the scrutiny. At one point in 1992, Perot was actually leading the polls over both Bush and Clinton! That's not a spoiler. But Perot dropped out of the race and only later returned, which dampened enthusiasm for him.

The spoiler effect presumes that third party candidates can't win. I think it's crucial to ask why they can't win, how is the system prevents them from having a reasonable chance at winning.

> (i) small parties are disincentivized to form because they have great difficulty winning seats or representation

I would say that parties are disincentivized to form because they have great difficulty raising money and getting attention. This is why they're doomed to smallness and obscurity.

Re: The US is not a democracy but an oligarchy, study concludes (2014)

#78

Post by 1659447091 »

lapcat wrote: post #68
1659447091 wrote: post #66

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 preference…

> 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 op…

> 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

Re: The US is not a democracy but an oligarchy, study concludes (2014)

#79

Post by lapcat »

1659447091 wrote: post #78
lapcat wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 op…

> 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 a…

[dead]

Re: The US is not a democracy but an oligarchy, study concludes (2014)

#80

Post by cybert »

lapcat wrote: post #77
cybert wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law It absolutely is true.

> In political science, Duverger's law holds that in political systems with single-member districts and the first-past-the-post voting system, as in, for example, the United States and United Kingdom, only two powerful political parties tend to control power every election cycle. Citizens do not vote for small parties because they fear splitting votes away from the major party and allowing their opponents to win an e…

I feel that campaign fundraising and news media coverage, while significant, aren't the primary reason why there are two parties. When the Democratic and Republican parties first formed in America, they weren't nearly as well funded and connected are they are now. However, even in that time those two parties dominated the field. One single exception in Ross Perot does not disprove the rule of Duverger's law, and neither does the few victories of other fledgling third parties in America's history.

Do you think that if campaign advertising and new coverage was banned, there would suddenly be a third party that springs up? If so, I disagree. I believe there is both a strong incentive for candidates who would start a third party to join one of the two parties, and for voters to vote for one of the two major parties to avoid "throwing away their vote". Any argument that proposes that attention and funding are more significant factors than the psychological factors of FPTP needs to first take the psychological factors into account. On top of that, we have evidence that countries which do not use FPTP voting have more political parties on average.

> I would say that parties are disincentivized to form because they have great difficulty raising money and getting attention.

Raising money and getting attention is winning elections. You can't have one without the other. The question is why they can't. The reason is FPTP voting incentivizes a two party system. It's a bit of a circular effect. The two parties dominate because they dominate. Sure, adding a third candidate makes winning take fewer votes, but you know what else makes winning easier? Joining an established party.

Post reply on HN