Princeton Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy

US an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

I can't say that I'm surprised by this, except that the trend has been occurring for far longer than I was aware. So our votes really mean next to nothing, if not nothing, and it will only get worse, thanks to the SCOTUS.

Welcome to USA Inc.

Great example of the power of oligarchs is the history of the health care reform movement

Surely most people must be aware of this already.

One can only hope that the American political regime and its proponents will someday get off their high horses and stop spreading something they do not have.

I'd hope so! This is far from new information. :) There are elements of democracy in the government, but as a whole, the government isn't run by the people's choice. It's run by various elite groups of people with money and real influence.

Sounds about right.

Some extra laughs: Comcast PAC gave money to every senator examining Time Warner Cable merger

Land of the dollar, home of the corrupt

Our entire election system is driven by money, everyone knows this. And with citizens united and the recent SC ruling allowing unlimited donation amounts its only going to get worse (or make it more public).

duh.

Thank the republican party.

LOL

If you think you can be a better politician go ahead and try

Only a partisan tool would think this is only a one party issue. 7 out of the top 10 richest in congress are Democrats...chew on that.

It's Inverted Totalitarianism

Now the question is, will the republic rise again?

The US actually parallels the history of Rome rather remarkably. We all know how that worked out.

If you tell this to some people they'll call you delusional and spiteful. Apparently the U.S will be the exception that will break the historical law that dictates the cycles of ascent and descent of empires and civilizations.

How does it parallel Rome's history? Name a few examples.

Well first the emperor started throwing money into the streets and then made his horse a general, the aqueducts dried up, and then barbarians swooped in from mexico and canada

*consul

And a list of the largest monetary donors to the major parties skews towards the GOP (AIles, Koch Brothers, etc). Your point is valid, even if you offered only one data point.

Due to the people not taking much interest in politics. The vote is a wonderful thing.....but low turn out and apathy means nothing changes.

he made him a senator actually., and it was the third Emperor who did that, not the first.

@RadecSupreme: No it was consul. And I don't think anyone claimed he was the first emperor.

I think you're mistaken, Caligula did make his horse a consul, not a senator. And he said "first the emperor" not "the first emperor".

Was never a direct democracy, was always a representative democracy. Representatives are always going to listen to interest groups and acknowledged experts more so than the average will of the people, which is completely uninformed, overly emotional and changes like the wind. The average issue is already complex, the bundle of major issues at any one time is beyond the average person... they have lives to lead and can't all be experts in statistics, economics, finance, science, energy, transportation, defense, social services etc.

That has created a situation where representatives are surrounded by experts and papers on everything, because they too are just people. And when you listen to politicians talk it is quite clear that they real don't know the issues either, You can usually count on a 5 to 10 sec sound bite and that's all.

Comparisons to all other civilizations are charming but meaningless. The knowledge and information requirements for a governance of a modern society make ancient roman leaders look like 3yr olds playing with blocks.

@deeliman: If I may ask, what are you guys talking about?

- Cheap foreign labor. In the end, much of Romes wealth was produced by foreign slave labor. Today many American jobs have been moved to foreign factories where the workers make pennies and are provided no benefits.

- Free stuff. Rome started with subsidizing the price of wheat for the masses. Then came salt, then other foodstuffs. Today what was once a safety net for the elderly, disabled and infirm has become a catch-all for those who just didn't put the effort in.

- Cost of elections. In both the US today and Rome of long ago, the cost of campaigning continues to rise and therefore the candidates become beholden to those with the money.

- Military over-extension. No explanation needed.

- In Rome, wealth increasingly was concentrated in the hands of a few. Today in the US, the top 10% see their incomes increase substantially while the rest of the populace are having their real wages reduced.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Why have a democratic regime then? Its not that I don't agree with what you said as I actually fully do, but I can't see the point of democracy if the people are thought to be incapable of governing themselves, which again is true. Does it boil down to tricking the masses into believing that they actually matter, that they're in control of things? If that's the case then democracy, contrary to what has been paraded for the last few decades, is a really deceptive and manipulative form of government in which case democratic states need to get off their moral high horses and just **** off altogether.

So which political system do you propose?

There was once a roman emperor who appointed his horse to the position of consul, one of the highest political office in rome at the time.

Talk about having a massive ego lol

But really that's quite peculiar.

Easy for me to answer. A monarchy with Hereditary Rule so that you can increase peoples happiness by simply stationing soldiers in cities, "nationhood" legal system so it's acceptable to draft citizens even if there's no war going on and the added benefit of a further increase to happiness to cities where military barracks are located (which would be all of them).

Labor laws would revolve around slavery so that anyone who was unhappy would be forced to work to death with out pay (doable because we have a big azz military that the people love). Economics would have to go with state owning all property so corporation would have no influence on politics.

Religion wise, Buddhism would be the official state religion (it's relatively easy to tech up to) and allow for organized religion which would increase production in all cities where Buddhism was the majority religion (which would be all of them, because if not, you'd be forced into slavery).

Curious what everyone else would go with.

1. I'm really not buying the story that chirstians are being persecuted in the US. I mean, stating that you are of any other religion than christianity is political suicide in the US. The majority of the population is christian as well.

2. The US military is not even close to the state in which the Roman army found itself at Rome's fall. You're really exaggerating here. Soldiers are still being trained well, there isn't widespread corruption. As for the economy, there isn't huge inflation in the US, which was a huge economic problem for the Romans.

3. I haven't seen foreign hordes attacking the US left and right yet. The US also hasn't been split in 3 parts. You're really comparing apples with oranges here.

4. And how exactly do you know that they don't care about being American?

5. Not even near the amount of corruption in the roman empire.

Overall I think you're really exaggerating things a lot.

You are certainly exaggerating by saying that stating a religious belief other than Christianity is political suicide in the US. Simply untrue and lazy.