> The US, in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious 'electoral' 'democratic' countries. We weren't formerly, but we clearly are now.<p>These people never went to Russia.
If you want a real working democracy, look at Switzerland. Or maybe at very local, neighborhood level in the US here and there, at the scale where people <i>actually care and know</i>.<p>To note: the entire Switzerland's population is 8.5M, about the size of 5 boroughs of New York City. They have <i>twenty six</i> cantons, all with severely different policies, and 2222 municipalities. Of course most voting occurs at municipal level, then cantonal level.<p>To my mind, nowhere in the world any larger state managed to get to the "level of democracy" which is possible and has been demonstrably achieved at smaller scales.<p>What additionally exacerbates the situation in the US is the two-party system that effectively polarizes people instead of nudging them to look for compromises.<p>The electoral college made sense in 1770s, with a much smaller population, and very slow communication. By now, it results in interesting side effects that probably could be avoided using different mechanisms. Still I think that no large nation has deployed any such mechanisms to successfully achieve "real democracy" and not some form of oligarchy. Mass media is a major factor in that; national scale being hard to comprehend and relate to for a voter is another.
> 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.<p>I bet most people's token solution to this will be to expand the size of the administrative state with new the levels "oversight", or new laws, new agencies, etc... which will proceed to be shaped and molded by these very same forces and only solidify these "elites" & special interest group's market positions and political influence over the regular person.<p>No one ever wants to reduce these group's power to influence their own position in the economy and policy by limiting government. Nor does anyone ever correlate the explosion in size of the administrative state in <i>every</i> western country since WW2 with the growth in power of the top end of the market and in general inequality (in both wealth/power). If this growth in scale has done little to help the average "little guy", who is it helping?
I continue to believe that proportional representation could really improve things. The two basic architectures of PR are multi-winner districts (incl. STV) and mixed-member systems, either of which could be implemented easily in the US. One major advantage is that the House hasn't been expanded in a long time and the citizen:legislator ratio in the US is much worse than in most European countries. That means PR could be implemented by <i>only</i> adding seats, so that nobody loses their Congressman.<p>The reason I support PR is that political parties are living entities that don't exist in a vacuum. It's basically impossible for small parties to grow on a national scale in the current environment. Previously when new parties formed and grew, they did so regionally, because US politics was much more local. But after the 17th Amendment and Medicaid, the states have much less power, and state politics is no longer an avenue to power on a national scale. It's like local stores competing with Wal-mart at this point: HQ will allocate extra resources to crush competition and then pull back afterwards. PR breaks that dynamic by giving small parties a voice in the national legislature. It forces the big guys to compete.<p>The way I think about it is: political parties exist in a jungle, and we just need to make sure some light reaches the forest floor.
US never had a democracy. Two parties assembly rather the bad cop / good cop scenario than a true democracy where people have control, built bottom up.<p>However this illusion worked well up until now when oligarchies started to rise by simply putting a mirror on the front of that so called democracy.<p>These new regimes have an easy job since the old system bleeds from all parts.<p>I’m a big fan of democracy and oligarchies are the way back, not the way forward.<p>However I’m skeptic if humanity is capable to invent a forward looking new system in the next years.
See also: 'The Quiet Coup' [0], Simon Johnson, 2009.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/307364/" rel="nofollow">https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-qui...</a><p>EDIT: Fixed link per comment
What I also find interesting, is that this research has been picked up by a couple major UK outlets, some other foreign outlets, but got very little coverage in US, despite it being an US issue.
Not exactly news. It's pretty to see the influence of various lobby groups on all levels of government. Most politicians, and especially those who have actual sway within the government, all come from a certain socio-economic background and have ultra-rich backers. Not to mention various entrenched political families (Kennedys, Clintons, Bushes, etc...), as well as close ties between politicians, rich political donors and the media.
Did a research study need to be done to show this? The US Constitution sets up a federated oligarchic republic with slaves to boot. What's shocking is that it's shocking that the US has something like the government it was designed to have. . . .
Technically the US is a Rebuplic. Which, in a sense, means it is largely a Democracy of Aristocrats. Who, it should be noted, have done a stellar job in the last 200 some-odd years of convincing the masses that the Aristocracy no longer (truly) exists. And so the People feel they have the power. When in reality it's all Smoke and Mirrors. Political Theater is nothing more than Circuses that the People can take part in. But the fact remains that Panem et Circenses still exists.<p>Or to put that in technical terms. "Democracy" (as understood in the common vernacular) is a honeypot that the People got caught in, at which time they got sandboxed.