An oligarchy where leaders frequently change based mostly on merit, with a social ladder accessible to anyone, is as close as you get to social harmony. As long as everyone has a shot, society is generally happy. (Note that a functioning economy is also needed for this.)
Democracy is mostly a safeguard to kick out the Napoleons before it’s too late.
Also, if you have strong local politics (like in the US, UK, or Australia), you might see more impact from your vote, as opposed to countries where you vote for a party and they pretty much do what they want for their term.
How are you defining oligarchs? I feel like in practice this term is only used to describe Russian businessmen, so I’m not sure if everyone has the same understanding.
I think the definition of “oligarch” is being stretched a little in the article, so I’m using it for my argument. Is Elon Musk an oligarch? Is Zuckerberg an oligarch?
My point is that as long as those at the top rotate and everyone has a shot, whether they’re called oligarchs or not doesn’t make much difference to the common person.
Not that oligarchy is good, but is democracy really good? Is it even really different? It is basically letting easily manipulated and uneducated people decide things. And they are manipulated by news media, which in turn is manipulated by the same powerful people this study claims are controlling policy. Today we have social media as well but most people think it’s bad - so how can they feel good about choices influenced by social media? Curious what hacker news users think, because I feel like my whole life democracy has only been talked about positively.
I forget where I read it, but no matter how popular a particular bill was with the general populace, it had a ~ 30% chance of passing whether it was universally reviled or loved. The probability was literally a flat line, indicating that voter sentiment had almost no impact on what was actually passed.
Now, what's interesting is when they plotted the same line vs corporate and special interest lobbyists. There was a near perfect correlation between the sentiment of those with money and the probability of the bill passing.
Americans are getting pretty frustrated with the fact that all of our political candidates are basically 'pre-approved' by the rich, and anger is redirecting to populist candidates. It's also contributing to the partisan divide as many Americans feel abandoned by the 'establishment'.
People think politicians like Trump are the problem, when really, they're the symptom of a system that serves corporate interests over that of it's citizens.
This is the crux of it. George Carlin had a bit that voting is about choosing which waiter serves you the food, but its always the same cooks in the kitchen who decide what you'll eat.
This is a pretty bad take. Many countries weigh population of voting regions. The idea is that the people in a smaller region with its own needs doesn't get its priorities relegated to oblivion just because no the same people live there than in a big city.
Not weighing votes by population alienates the rural voters.
The college vote has little to do with population. It might have started that way, but it seems to be more about artificially inflating one side of the vote these days. (To be fair, redistricting has been abused for this effect as well, although on a smaller scale.)
It makes it so it is possible to lose every popular vote, yet still win the election "by a landslide."
What other countries are doing this? I can't think of any.
This journal article has been thoroughly debunked three separate times. TLDR if you dig into the data, the middle class agree with the rich most of the time and in the small cases where they disagree, it’s a wash between who gets their way. So yes they have outsized influence, but no the US does not appear to be an oligarchy. More here: https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-...
Readit News
An oligarchy where leaders frequently change based mostly on merit, with a social ladder accessible to anyone, is as close as you get to social harmony. As long as everyone has a shot, society is generally happy. (Note that a functioning economy is also needed for this.)
Democracy is mostly a safeguard to kick out the Napoleons before it’s too late.
Also, if you have strong local politics (like in the US, UK, or Australia), you might see more impact from your vote, as opposed to countries where you vote for a party and they pretty much do what they want for their term.
My point is that as long as those at the top rotate and everyone has a shot, whether they’re called oligarchs or not doesn’t make much difference to the common person.
Now, what's interesting is when they plotted the same line vs corporate and special interest lobbyists. There was a near perfect correlation between the sentiment of those with money and the probability of the bill passing.
Americans are getting pretty frustrated with the fact that all of our political candidates are basically 'pre-approved' by the rich, and anger is redirecting to populist candidates. It's also contributing to the partisan divide as many Americans feel abandoned by the 'establishment'.
People think politicians like Trump are the problem, when really, they're the symptom of a system that serves corporate interests over that of it's citizens.
>the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.
This is fully true, especially since Citizens United.
Not weighing votes by population alienates the rural voters.
It makes it so it is possible to lose every popular vote, yet still win the election "by a landslide."
What other countries are doing this? I can't think of any.