Bipartisanship is a shibboleth that is supposed to stand in for consensus. And broad consensus agreement is typically a good thing for a government/ polity to have so as to prevent massive swings in policy every ~4 years and be incapable of long term planning. However, consensus is entirely neutral as to whether or not it's a good thing, just a broadly agreed upon thing. Broad bipartisan/ consensus opinions that we should fix bridges rather than let them fall down is great, and we need more of it. Broad bipartisan/ consensus opinion that white supremacy is good and proper because black people aren't really people is, you know, bad.
The US government is also designed to require extremely broad consensus among legislators to do anything.
One of the things you see in a lot of other democracies is that need for broad consensus is a norm rather then a requirement. A majority in a westminster-style parliamentary system can ram through whatever it wants technically.
Nothing keeps 50+1 Senators and a bare majority of the House from ramming through whatever the President won't veto. Senate rules can be changed on a whim if you have majority support and as such are just strong norms.
The problem is we don't have 50+1 Senators willing to do it, not that 50+1 Senators can't.
You still need three things agreeing. Canada, the UK, and most functioning democracies need one.
Bipartisanship is a shibboleth that is supposed to stand in for consensus. And broad consensus agreement is typically a good thing for a government/ polity to have so as to prevent massive swings in policy every ~4 years and be incapable of long term planning. However, consensus is entirely neutral as to whether or not it's a good thing, just a broadly agreed upon thing. Broad bipartisan/ consensus opinions that we should fix bridges rather than let them fall down is great, and we need more of it. Broad bipartisan/ consensus opinion that white supremacy is good and proper because black people aren't really people is, you know, bad.
The US government is also designed to require extremely broad consensus among legislators to do anything.
One of the things you see in a lot of other democracies is that need for broad consensus is a norm rather then a requirement. A majority in a westminster-style parliamentary system can ram through whatever it wants technically.
Nothing keeps 50+1 Senators and a bare majority of the House from ramming through whatever the President won't veto. Senate rules can be changed on a whim if you have majority support and as such are just strong norms.
The problem is we don't have 50+1 Senators willing to do it, not that 50+1 Senators can't.
You still need three things agreeing. Canada, the UK, and most functioning democracies need one.
And the Senate's inherent anti-democratic biases also means that the broad consensus has to spill over into numerous geographic areas to be sufficient. Because those 50+1 Senators don't need to represent a majority of people. In fact the other caucus of 50 Senators don't.
It’s a bad system set up by guys who were already doing really well and just wanted to stop having the English Parliament and Monarchy tell them what they couldn’t do, so get rid of that and otherwise don’t allow people to easily mess with the good thing they had going
Bipartisanship is a shibboleth that is supposed to stand in for consensus. And broad consensus agreement is typically a good thing for a government/ polity to have so as to prevent massive swings in policy every ~4 years and be incapable of long term planning. However, consensus is entirely neutral as to whether or not it's a good thing, just a broadly agreed upon thing. Broad bipartisan/ consensus opinions that we should fix bridges rather than let them fall down is great, and we need more of it. Broad bipartisan/ consensus opinion that white supremacy is good and proper because black people aren't really people is, you know, bad.
The US government is also designed to require extremely broad consensus among legislators to do anything.
One of the things you see in a lot of other democracies is that need for broad consensus is a norm rather then a requirement. A majority in a westminster-style parliamentary system can ram through whatever it wants technically.
Nothing keeps 50+1 Senators and a bare majority of the House from ramming through whatever the President won't veto. Senate rules can be changed on a whim if you have majority support and as such are just strong norms.
The problem is we don't have 50+1 Senators willing to do it, not that 50+1 Senators can't.
You still need three things agreeing. Canada, the UK, and most functioning democracies need one.
And the Senate's inherent anti-democratic biases also means that the broad consensus has to spill over into numerous geographic areas to be sufficient. Because those 50+1 Senators don't need to represent a majority of people. In fact the other caucus of 50 Senators don't.
Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and ACB were all confirmed by senators representing less than half the US population too (even adding the dem senators that voted for them)
It’s a bad system set up by guys who were already doing really well and just wanted to stop having the English Parliament and Monarchy tell them what they couldn’t do, so get rid of that and otherwise don’t allow people to easily mess with the good thing they had going
The system makes a lot more sense imo when viewed, on a practical level, as a kind of power-sharing agreement between pre-existing little colonial nations with already existing political power structures and elites. There's a lot of loftier goals and ideals added on top by the people trying to pull it together but that's all grafted on top of that base and the agreements forged to make that structure work.
The Senate, especially pre-17th-amendment, makes a lot of sense in that context. And none in the context of a modern nation state.
Ohio's state supreme court ruled Friday that the state's newly-drawn congressional map, which was passed by the GOP-controlled legislature, violates the state constitution because it "unduly favors the Republican Party and disfavors the Democratic Party."
The court's Republican chief justice joined the three Democratic justices in the majority opinion, while the court's three other justices dissented.
State lawmakers will now have 30 days to draw a new congressional district plan after the court ordered the legislature to draw a new map that "is not dictated by partisan considerations," or it falls to the Ohio Redistricting Commission to craft a new plan within 30 days.
NO governmental system can work if 50% of the politicians are acting in bad faith
And enough of the electorate are naive, don't care or are supportive of it.
Not much can be done about the latter two though it's still pathetic, but the first one, it's just fucking frustrating seeing Republicans polling well.
It'd be one thing if their state capture was the reason they were winning elections, but unless something significantly happens, that Republicans could realistically win at least one chamber this year fairly, because enough people either don't see the danger, or think it's about time to put Republicans back in office, or whatever excuse they have from changing from Democrat to Republican, is just disheartening.
Gods, every time I see that clip of Sinema clutching her pearls the other day crying about how she refuses to be a part of this horrible dividing of America it makes me unreasonably angry. I don't know how Biden can stand this constant door slamming at every turn and shit talking from all directions.
Gods, every time I see that clip of Sinema clutching her pearls the other day crying about how she refuses to be a part of this horrible dividing of America it makes me unreasonably angry. I don't know how Biden can stand this constant door slamming at every turn and shit talking from all directions.
Now imagine having to work with them. Every day you go into work you have to deal with Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin nicely like they are colleagues instead of shitfaced trolls. And you gotta sit in the same room as people like Ted Cruz and listen to them speak sometimes.
shryke on
+14
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
Gods, every time I see that clip of Sinema clutching her pearls the other day crying about how she refuses to be a part of this horrible dividing of America it makes me unreasonably angry. I don't know how Biden can stand this constant door slamming at every turn and shit talking from all directions.
I think it's extremely reasonable to be angry about some awful awful moron trying to help destroy democracy out of delusion, greed, stupidity, corruption or some combination of these factors
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
Gods, every time I see that clip of Sinema clutching her pearls the other day crying about how she refuses to be a part of this horrible dividing of America it makes me unreasonably angry. I don't know how Biden can stand this constant door slamming at every turn and shit talking from all directions.
Gods, every time I see that clip of Sinema clutching her pearls the other day crying about how she refuses to be a part of this horrible dividing of America it makes me unreasonably angry. I don't know how Biden can stand this constant door slamming at every turn and shit talking from all directions.
Now imagine having to work with them. Every day you go into work you have to deal with Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin nicely like they are collogues instead of shitfaced trolls. And you gotta sit in the same room as people like Ted Cruz and listen to them speak sometimes.
This reminds me of the Al Frankin quote: “I like Ted Cruz more than most of my other colleagues like Ted Cruz. And I hate Ted Cruz.”
Gods, every time I see that clip of Sinema clutching her pearls the other day crying about how she refuses to be a part of this horrible dividing of America it makes me unreasonably angry. I don't know how Biden can stand this constant door slamming at every turn and shit talking from all directions.
To borrow from one of my very favorite classic video games:
Judging from the expression, “What you don’t know can’t hurt you,” Sinema must be practically invulnerable.
Bipartisanship is a shibboleth that is supposed to stand in for consensus. And broad consensus agreement is typically a good thing for a government/ polity to have so as to prevent massive swings in policy every ~4 years and be incapable of long term planning. However, consensus is entirely neutral as to whether or not it's a good thing, just a broadly agreed upon thing. Broad bipartisan/ consensus opinions that we should fix bridges rather than let them fall down is great, and we need more of it. Broad bipartisan/ consensus opinion that white supremacy is good and proper because black people aren't really people is, you know, bad.
I feel confident that both sides have shown that they don't give a shit about what the public consensus on an issue is.
Bipartisanship is a shibboleth that is supposed to stand in for consensus. And broad consensus agreement is typically a good thing for a government/ polity to have so as to prevent massive swings in policy every ~4 years and be incapable of long term planning. However, consensus is entirely neutral as to whether or not it's a good thing, just a broadly agreed upon thing. Broad bipartisan/ consensus opinions that we should fix bridges rather than let them fall down is great, and we need more of it. Broad bipartisan/ consensus opinion that white supremacy is good and proper because black people aren't really people is, you know, bad.
I feel confident that both sides have shown that they don't give a shit about what the public consensus on an issue is.
The operative core of the “bipartisanship” ideal is, at the very least, a small amount of ideological overlap between the most liberal Republicans and the most conservative Democrats. That hasn’t been the case since the W days, at least, and definitely stopped being a thing once Barack Obama took office; the most conservative Democrat voted for health reform, and the most liberal Republican voted against it.
The Republican Party has been running to the right since I’ve been alive. The “middle ground” has been running to the right as a consequence. Anybody who champions bipartisanship is championing a slide into fascism.
Bipartisanship is a shibboleth that is supposed to stand in for consensus. And broad consensus agreement is typically a good thing for a government/ polity to have so as to prevent massive swings in policy every ~4 years and be incapable of long term planning. However, consensus is entirely neutral as to whether or not it's a good thing, just a broadly agreed upon thing. Broad bipartisan/ consensus opinions that we should fix bridges rather than let them fall down is great, and we need more of it. Broad bipartisan/ consensus opinion that white supremacy is good and proper because black people aren't really people is, you know, bad.
I feel confident that both sides have shown that they don't give a shit about what the public consensus on an issue is.
There are studies finding no link between public opinion and government policy.
Bipartisanship is a shibboleth that is supposed to stand in for consensus. And broad consensus agreement is typically a good thing for a government/ polity to have so as to prevent massive swings in policy every ~4 years and be incapable of long term planning. However, consensus is entirely neutral as to whether or not it's a good thing, just a broadly agreed upon thing. Broad bipartisan/ consensus opinions that we should fix bridges rather than let them fall down is great, and we need more of it. Broad bipartisan/ consensus opinion that white supremacy is good and proper because black people aren't really people is, you know, bad.
I feel confident that both sides have shown that they don't give a shit about what the public consensus on an issue is.
There are studies finding no link between public opinion and government policy.
Bipartisanship is a shibboleth that is supposed to stand in for consensus. And broad consensus agreement is typically a good thing for a government/ polity to have so as to prevent massive swings in policy every ~4 years and be incapable of long term planning. However, consensus is entirely neutral as to whether or not it's a good thing, just a broadly agreed upon thing. Broad bipartisan/ consensus opinions that we should fix bridges rather than let them fall down is great, and we need more of it. Broad bipartisan/ consensus opinion that white supremacy is good and proper because black people aren't really people is, you know, bad.
I feel confident that both sides have shown that they don't give a shit about what the public consensus on an issue is.
There are studies finding no link between public opinion and government policy.
What studies are those?
CNBC report and two sources on a mid-decade Princeton report
From government-mandated paid maternity leave to tuition-free college, the CNBC All-America Economic Survey reveals a surprising American appetite for some very progressive policies.
In a survey of 800 Americans nationwide, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points, the CNBC survey finds majority support for five of six proposals that have been percolating in the national debate mostly, but not entirely, from the Democratic side. On some of the issues, the survey even found majority Republican support.
The US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.
So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.
This is not news, you say.
Perhaps, but the two professors have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion. Here's how they explain it:
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.
In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.
The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organised interest groups saw their policy preferences enacted.
Their study took data from nearly 2,000 public-opinion surveys and compared what the people wanted to what the government actually did. What they found was extremely unsettling: The opinions of the bottom 90% of income earners in America has essentially no impact at all.
Put another way, and I'll just quote the Princeton study directly here:
“The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."
Really think about that for a second.
If you've ever felt like your opinion doesn't matter and that the government doesn't really care what you think, well … you're right.
Those studies fit neatly into “disappointing but not surprising” for me, not least because so many members of Congress are themselves uh, wealthy elites?
What’s that? Stop burning so much coal? Hang on, I need to go ask one of the last remaining Coal Barons if that’s a smart move.
Someone who used to work as a bartender wants to make it so folks can afford to live in safety and with dignity? In our House of Representatives!? This wild-eyed socialist naïveté cannot stand!
Et seq.
The most exhausting part for me is the kayfabe, and strangely seeing empirical evidence of its farcical nature in print is a balm to me. Lifts a load off my shoulders, even as it makes it that much harder for me to feel energized about doing anything about the problem.
It's part of the reason I'd like to see the House trebled in size or more. We're all getting close to being 1 in a Million constituents (and some single member States already are) so why should they care about my vote? But if I was 1 in 100,000 they might be a bit more responsive. Because it's physically possible for me to talk to ~40,000 constituents and be a threat to their electoral prospects in a way that it just isn't for the 262,045 votes my Rep got last election. (70/30 because Chicago)
It's part of the reason I'd like to see the House trebled in size or more. We're all getting close to being 1 in a Million constituents (and some single member States already are) so why should they care about my vote? But if I was 1 in 100,000 they might be a bit more responsive. Because it's physically possible for me to talk to ~40,000 constituents and be a threat to their electoral prospects in a way that it just isn't for the 262,045 votes my Rep got last election. (70/30 because Chicago)
A House that is triple its current size also costs a lot more to bribe. Of course the Senate exists and is a veritable bargain by comparison…
Bipartisanship is a shibboleth that is supposed to stand in for consensus. And broad consensus agreement is typically a good thing for a government/ polity to have so as to prevent massive swings in policy every ~4 years and be incapable of long term planning. However, consensus is entirely neutral as to whether or not it's a good thing, just a broadly agreed upon thing. Broad bipartisan/ consensus opinions that we should fix bridges rather than let them fall down is great, and we need more of it. Broad bipartisan/ consensus opinion that white supremacy is good and proper because black people aren't really people is, you know, bad.
I feel confident that both sides have shown that they don't give a shit about what the public consensus on an issue is.
There are studies finding no link between public opinion and government policy.
What studies are those?
CNBC report and two sources on a mid-decade Princeton report
From government-mandated paid maternity leave to tuition-free college, the CNBC All-America Economic Survey reveals a surprising American appetite for some very progressive policies.
In a survey of 800 Americans nationwide, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points, the CNBC survey finds majority support for five of six proposals that have been percolating in the national debate mostly, but not entirely, from the Democratic side. On some of the issues, the survey even found majority Republican support.
The US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.
So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.
This is not news, you say.
Perhaps, but the two professors have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion. Here's how they explain it:
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.
In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.
The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organised interest groups saw their policy preferences enacted.
Their study took data from nearly 2,000 public-opinion surveys and compared what the people wanted to what the government actually did. What they found was extremely unsettling: The opinions of the bottom 90% of income earners in America has essentially no impact at all.
Put another way, and I'll just quote the Princeton study directly here:
“The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."
Really think about that for a second.
If you've ever felt like your opinion doesn't matter and that the government doesn't really care what you think, well … you're right.
Research published since then has raised serious questions about this paper, both its finding and its analysis. This is, of course, how normal science works; some academics put a finding out there, and their peers pick it apart.
But the study has become a frequently invoked piece of evidence in debates about money in politics, and the public and political debate has not kept up with the scholarly one. And the latest scholarly critiques suggest that while the rich certainly have more political influence than the middle class, ordinary Americans still win a substantial share of the time, even when the affluent oppose them.
The TLDR is other people have gone through the data set they used and say the data doesn't support the extent or strength of the conclusions they are drawing from it.
eg -
But the researchers critiquing the paper found that middle-income Americans and rich Americans actually agree on an overwhelming majority of topics. Out of the 1,779 bills in the Gilens/Page data set, majorities of the rich and middle class agree on 1,594; there are 616 bills both groups oppose and 978 bills both groups favor. That means the groups agree on 89.6 percent of bills.
That leaves only 185 bills on which the rich and the middle class disagree, and even there the disagreements are small. On average, the groups' opinion gaps on the 185 bills is 10.9 percentage points; so, say, 45 percent of the middle class might support a bill while 55.9 percent of the rich support it.
Bashir and Branham/Soroka/Wlezien find that on these 185 bills, the rich got their preferred outcome 53 percent of the time and the middle class got what they wanted 47 percent of the time. The difference between the two is not statistically significant. And there are some funny examples in the list of middle-class victories. For instance, the middle class got what they wanted on public financing of elections: in all three 1990s surveys included in the Gilens data, they opposed it, while the rich favor it.
You can read the whole thing and links to some of the papers there (one of the links is broken but you can just google the paper and find it)
This bit from one of the papers is also interesting:
The results indicate that the poor do slightly worse than the other income groups, although even they occasionally win over the preferences of the middle or rich. What inequality we do observe appears to come mostly from negative power, where the middle and rich effectively block many of the policies favored by the poor.
And you can find plenty of other papers over the years on the issue of policy responsiveness to public opinion. Although I would say they almost universally agree that more work needs to be done. This was a decent collection of papers on the subject if you want to look, although obviously there's more elsewhere if you want to go looking: https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756223/obo-9780199756223-0103.xml
Basically, the idea that there is no connection between public opinion and government policy does not seem at all conclusive from what I've seen.
It's part of the reason I'd like to see the House trebled in size or more. We're all getting close to being 1 in a Million constituents (and some single member States already are) so why should they care about my vote? But if I was 1 in 100,000 they might be a bit more responsive. Because it's physically possible for me to talk to ~40,000 constituents and be a threat to their electoral prospects in a way that it just isn't for the 262,045 votes my Rep got last election. (70/30 because Chicago)
Our current congress woman elected in 2018, Kim Schrier, made the effort to actually drive around our district to meet as many constituents as possible.
That's 7,000 square miles and near 800,000 people. If she never slept and talked to everyone every day she'd have to meet with 2,000 people a day for 15 minutes each. No one is benefiting from it.
+11
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Bipartisanship is a shibboleth that is supposed to stand in for consensus. And broad consensus agreement is typically a good thing for a government/ polity to have so as to prevent massive swings in policy every ~4 years and be incapable of long term planning. However, consensus is entirely neutral as to whether or not it's a good thing, just a broadly agreed upon thing. Broad bipartisan/ consensus opinions that we should fix bridges rather than let them fall down is great, and we need more of it. Broad bipartisan/ consensus opinion that white supremacy is good and proper because black people aren't really people is, you know, bad.
I feel confident that both sides have shown that they don't give a shit about what the public consensus on an issue is.
There are studies finding no link between public opinion and government policy.
What studies are those?
CNBC report and two sources on a mid-decade Princeton report
From government-mandated paid maternity leave to tuition-free college, the CNBC All-America Economic Survey reveals a surprising American appetite for some very progressive policies.
In a survey of 800 Americans nationwide, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points, the CNBC survey finds majority support for five of six proposals that have been percolating in the national debate mostly, but not entirely, from the Democratic side. On some of the issues, the survey even found majority Republican support.
The US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.
So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.
This is not news, you say.
Perhaps, but the two professors have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion. Here's how they explain it:
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.
In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.
The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organised interest groups saw their policy preferences enacted.
Their study took data from nearly 2,000 public-opinion surveys and compared what the people wanted to what the government actually did. What they found was extremely unsettling: The opinions of the bottom 90% of income earners in America has essentially no impact at all.
Put another way, and I'll just quote the Princeton study directly here:
“The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."
Really think about that for a second.
If you've ever felt like your opinion doesn't matter and that the government doesn't really care what you think, well … you're right.
Research published since then has raised serious questions about this paper, both its finding and its analysis. This is, of course, how normal science works; some academics put a finding out there, and their peers pick it apart.
But the study has become a frequently invoked piece of evidence in debates about money in politics, and the public and political debate has not kept up with the scholarly one. And the latest scholarly critiques suggest that while the rich certainly have more political influence than the middle class, ordinary Americans still win a substantial share of the time, even when the affluent oppose them.
The TLDR is other people have gone through the data set they used and say the data doesn't support the extent or strength of the conclusions they are drawing from it.
eg -
But the researchers critiquing the paper found that middle-income Americans and rich Americans actually agree on an overwhelming majority of topics. Out of the 1,779 bills in the Gilens/Page data set, majorities of the rich and middle class agree on 1,594; there are 616 bills both groups oppose and 978 bills both groups favor. That means the groups agree on 89.6 percent of bills.
That leaves only 185 bills on which the rich and the middle class disagree, and even there the disagreements are small. On average, the groups' opinion gaps on the 185 bills is 10.9 percentage points; so, say, 45 percent of the middle class might support a bill while 55.9 percent of the rich support it.
Bashir and Branham/Soroka/Wlezien find that on these 185 bills, the rich got their preferred outcome 53 percent of the time and the middle class got what they wanted 47 percent of the time. The difference between the two is not statistically significant. And there are some funny examples in the list of middle-class victories. For instance, the middle class got what they wanted on public financing of elections: in all three 1990s surveys included in the Gilens data, they opposed it, while the rich favor it.
You can read the whole thing and links to some of the papers there (one of the links is broken but you can just google the paper and find it)
This bit from one of the papers is also interesting:
The results indicate that the poor do slightly worse than the other income groups, although even they occasionally win over the preferences of the middle or rich. What inequality we do observe appears to come mostly from negative power, where the middle and rich effectively block many of the policies favored by the poor.
And you can find plenty of other papers over the years on the issue of policy responsiveness to public opinion. Although I would say they almost universally agree that more work needs to be done. This was a decent collection of papers on the subject if you want to look, although obviously there's more elsewhere if you want to go looking: https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756223/obo-9780199756223-0103.xml
Basically, the idea that there is no connection between public opinion and government policy does not seem at all conclusive from what I've seen.
The GOP's singular legislative achievement during Trump's presidency was also the least popular bill to pass since public opinion on bills has been tracked. In contrast, BBB contains policies that are very popular across the ideological spectrum and it has been stifled by the elites.
Considering how few bills actually get through Congress that aren't a blank check to the Pentagon, it's hard not to draw the same conclusion the Princeton study did even from anecdotal evidence.
Bipartisanship is a shibboleth that is supposed to stand in for consensus. And broad consensus agreement is typically a good thing for a government/ polity to have so as to prevent massive swings in policy every ~4 years and be incapable of long term planning. However, consensus is entirely neutral as to whether or not it's a good thing, just a broadly agreed upon thing. Broad bipartisan/ consensus opinions that we should fix bridges rather than let them fall down is great, and we need more of it. Broad bipartisan/ consensus opinion that white supremacy is good and proper because black people aren't really people is, you know, bad.
I feel confident that both sides have shown that they don't give a shit about what the public consensus on an issue is.
There are studies finding no link between public opinion and government policy.
What studies are those?
CNBC report and two sources on a mid-decade Princeton report
From government-mandated paid maternity leave to tuition-free college, the CNBC All-America Economic Survey reveals a surprising American appetite for some very progressive policies.
In a survey of 800 Americans nationwide, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points, the CNBC survey finds majority support for five of six proposals that have been percolating in the national debate mostly, but not entirely, from the Democratic side. On some of the issues, the survey even found majority Republican support.
The US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.
So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.
This is not news, you say.
Perhaps, but the two professors have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion. Here's how they explain it:
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.
In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.
The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organised interest groups saw their policy preferences enacted.
Their study took data from nearly 2,000 public-opinion surveys and compared what the people wanted to what the government actually did. What they found was extremely unsettling: The opinions of the bottom 90% of income earners in America has essentially no impact at all.
Put another way, and I'll just quote the Princeton study directly here:
“The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."
Really think about that for a second.
If you've ever felt like your opinion doesn't matter and that the government doesn't really care what you think, well … you're right.
Research published since then has raised serious questions about this paper, both its finding and its analysis. This is, of course, how normal science works; some academics put a finding out there, and their peers pick it apart.
But the study has become a frequently invoked piece of evidence in debates about money in politics, and the public and political debate has not kept up with the scholarly one. And the latest scholarly critiques suggest that while the rich certainly have more political influence than the middle class, ordinary Americans still win a substantial share of the time, even when the affluent oppose them.
The TLDR is other people have gone through the data set they used and say the data doesn't support the extent or strength of the conclusions they are drawing from it.
eg -
But the researchers critiquing the paper found that middle-income Americans and rich Americans actually agree on an overwhelming majority of topics. Out of the 1,779 bills in the Gilens/Page data set, majorities of the rich and middle class agree on 1,594; there are 616 bills both groups oppose and 978 bills both groups favor. That means the groups agree on 89.6 percent of bills.
That leaves only 185 bills on which the rich and the middle class disagree, and even there the disagreements are small. On average, the groups' opinion gaps on the 185 bills is 10.9 percentage points; so, say, 45 percent of the middle class might support a bill while 55.9 percent of the rich support it.
Bashir and Branham/Soroka/Wlezien find that on these 185 bills, the rich got their preferred outcome 53 percent of the time and the middle class got what they wanted 47 percent of the time. The difference between the two is not statistically significant. And there are some funny examples in the list of middle-class victories. For instance, the middle class got what they wanted on public financing of elections: in all three 1990s surveys included in the Gilens data, they opposed it, while the rich favor it.
You can read the whole thing and links to some of the papers there (one of the links is broken but you can just google the paper and find it)
This bit from one of the papers is also interesting:
The results indicate that the poor do slightly worse than the other income groups, although even they occasionally win over the preferences of the middle or rich. What inequality we do observe appears to come mostly from negative power, where the middle and rich effectively block many of the policies favored by the poor.
And you can find plenty of other papers over the years on the issue of policy responsiveness to public opinion. Although I would say they almost universally agree that more work needs to be done. This was a decent collection of papers on the subject if you want to look, although obviously there's more elsewhere if you want to go looking: https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756223/obo-9780199756223-0103.xml
Basically, the idea that there is no connection between public opinion and government policy does not seem at all conclusive from what I've seen.
I just want to say that while I am perfectly willing to adjust my understanding to incorporate new facts, and that I’m quite cognizant that anecdote and common-sense reasoning do not always apply to situations of USA-national scale, that we should let empirical studies guide our priorities and actions, I’m standing behind the “let’s go ask the Coal Baron if we should maybe mine less coal” line specifically. It’s a good line, and in the situation of Joe Manchin-scale I feel perfectly comfortable looking at his smug, beady-eyed mug and using common-sense reason to snarl “this fuckin’ guy…”
Carry on, thanks for reading.
Treating Congress as a monolith is dumb. The entire Democratic leadership argument is that they want to pass bills that are popular so that they will get elected. They haven't realized this doesn't actually work yet, but still!
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
“I think the tragedy is that we have a Congress with a Senate that has a minority of misguided senators who will use the filibuster to keep the majority of people from even voting.”
1963!
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+38
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited January 2022
It is worth noting that, if the rich and middle class each get their way roughly equal amounts of the time where they disagree, that is itself evidence that money has a tremendous influence on politics. The middle class outnumber the rich, so a democratic politics in which money didn't matter would be one in which the middle class get their way almost all of the time when they disagree with the rich.
That being said, the critical discussion of the original study is of course much appreciated.
MrMister on
+2
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Congressional Democrats are joining Republicans in a last-ditch effort to undermine the newly implemented No Surprises Act, which bans surprise medical bills. A key provision in the law could become a first step toward allowing the federal government to standardize rates for medical procedures covered under private insurance plans, an objective the private health care industry has fought for decades. Late last year, in the months leading up to the bill’s enactment, opponents filed a flurry of lawsuits claiming that by enforcing the rule in a manner widely viewed as consistent with the text of the legislation, the Biden administration had overstepped Congress’s intentions.
Christ on a pogo stick the assholes are really coming out of the woodwork now.
Even when you pass laws it doesn’t end because the money is still with these interests.
Also my god Romney going on about how Biden hasn’t come to him about election reform. They’re all little princes waiting for their supplicants. How about you go to him, or your fellow republicans, or do anything of your own volition
Even when you pass laws it doesn’t end because the money is still with these interests.
Also my god Romney going on about how Biden hasn’t come to him about election reform. They’re all little princes waiting for their supplicants. How about you go to him, or your fellow republicans, or do anything of your own volition
Because he doesn't want voting rights. But outright saying that looks so bad even Chuck Todd might call him on it.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Even when you pass laws it doesn’t end because the money is still with these interests.
Also my god Romney going on about how Biden hasn’t come to him about election reform. They’re all little princes waiting for their supplicants. How about you go to him, or your fellow republicans, or do anything of your own volition
Because he doesn't want voting rights. But outright saying that looks so bad even Chuck Todd might call him on it.
Lets try and stay grounded in reality here, there are plenty of doormats that are more aggressive than Chuck Todd.
It is worth noting that, if the rich and middle class each get their way roughly equal amounts of the time where they disagree, that is itself evidence that money has a tremendous influence on politics. The middle class outnumber the rich, so a democratic politics in which money didn't matter would be one in which the middle class get their way almost all of the time when they disagree with the rich.
That being said, the critical discussion of the original study is of course much appreciated.
A few things to consider imo when looking at this analysis
- the data is all from 1981-2002 I think
- The rich here are defined as people above the 90th percentile in income. So not necessarily as small as people might expect from the moniker. For 2020 this is $200k+. For the time period of the study it should be about $90k+ at the start and about $115k+ at the end.
- The middle are defined at the 50th percentile. (I'm not sure what range exactly around that) Which is about $67k today and was $37k to $42k during the time period of the study.
- So insofar as the "rich elite" are defined here, they still include a lot of people who are not millionaires and still work for a living and such. And this is household income too. I think one of the potentially mistaken assumptions Gilens/Page make is in assuming the 90th percentile and the 99th percentile must have a full set of common interests.
- nothing is measured in terms of how much they disagree, only whether a majority of any particular groups supports or opposes a policy. So we don't actually know the specific amount of agreement or disagreement on any particular policy.
- the rich and the middle agree 90% of the time in the data set
- the party in power actually causes swings in the data. I'm not sure if anyone does a specific analysis on how much that occurs, maybe I missed it, but it's mentioned in the papers.
- given for this time period Republicans maintained control of the President for most of this period and the House and Senate for much of it (there's only 2 years during this time period in which Democrats have a trifecta) this may present a potentially significant skew in the data. Especially given that blocking legislation is the most common kind of "win" defined here.
- the bias in what passes or doesn't is not actually that significant. The rich favour more conservative policies (ie - blocking more liberal policy and passing more conservative policy) in this analysis but only to a very mild degree. And the middle's preferences are basically flat. There is not a huge left vs right split in this rich vs middle fight.
- almost certainly a few more things I meant to mention I've forgotten while writing this all down
And as I said before, the most significant statement I think in the rebuttals (and also other papers independent of the Princeton one from Gilens/Page) is a big old "We don't fucking know for sure". There's questions over why there's such broad agreement in the first place and whether or not income is even the right way to try and divide these fights up, for instance.
It's a faulty assumption that because someone is making median wage, they should be considered "middle-class."
There's a ongoing discussion in the Labor thread right now about how people's perception of what "poor" means is sorely outdated to the reality of everyday life.
I keep thinking lately how Madison’s view of the “tyranny of the majority” was that one day, after years of population growth and thus, in accordance, the growth of the House, that the poors would one day demand through its legislative powers economic equity with the rich.
And this was his literal argument to the constitutional convention as to the necessity of a legislative house of “wisdom and virtue” which would protect the interests of the landed gentry: The Senate.
Great experiment my ass
Lanz on
+6
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Even when you pass laws it doesn’t end because the money is still with these interests.
Also my god Romney going on about how Biden hasn’t come to him about election reform. They’re all little princes waiting for their supplicants. How about you go to him, or your fellow republicans, or do anything of your own volition
Because he doesn't want voting rights. But outright saying that looks so bad even Chuck Todd might call him on it.
Lets try and stay grounded in reality here, there are plenty of doormats that are more aggressive than Chuck Todd.
Chuck Todd isn't questioning Romney for shit because he's a Republican. He's not even like a serious-but-still-conservative anchor like Chris Wallace, he's a very loyal Republican that works for NBC and only invites other Republicans (mostly still in office) on his show to give GOP talking points. There is no individual more responsible for the whitewashing the insurrectionists in the GOP than that motherfucker.
Posts
You still need three things agreeing. Canada, the UK, and most functioning democracies need one.
And the Senate's inherent anti-democratic biases also means that the broad consensus has to spill over into numerous geographic areas to be sufficient. Because those 50+1 Senators don't need to represent a majority of people. In fact the other caucus of 50 Senators don't.
Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and ACB were all confirmed by senators representing less than half the US population too (even adding the dem senators that voted for them)
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
The system makes a lot more sense imo when viewed, on a practical level, as a kind of power-sharing agreement between pre-existing little colonial nations with already existing political power structures and elites. There's a lot of loftier goals and ideals added on top by the people trying to pull it together but that's all grafted on top of that base and the agreements forged to make that structure work.
The Senate, especially pre-17th-amendment, makes a lot of sense in that context. And none in the context of a modern nation state.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/14/politics/ohio-congressional-map-overturned/index.html
And enough of the electorate are naive, don't care or are supportive of it.
Not much can be done about the latter two though it's still pathetic, but the first one, it's just fucking frustrating seeing Republicans polling well.
It'd be one thing if their state capture was the reason they were winning elections, but unless something significantly happens, that Republicans could realistically win at least one chamber this year fairly, because enough people either don't see the danger, or think it's about time to put Republicans back in office, or whatever excuse they have from changing from Democrat to Republican, is just disheartening.
Now imagine having to work with them. Every day you go into work you have to deal with Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin nicely like they are colleagues instead of shitfaced trolls. And you gotta sit in the same room as people like Ted Cruz and listen to them speak sometimes.
I think it's extremely reasonable to be angry about some awful awful moron trying to help destroy democracy out of delusion, greed, stupidity, corruption or some combination of these factors
Work experience.
This reminds me of the Al Frankin quote: “I like Ted Cruz more than most of my other colleagues like Ted Cruz. And I hate Ted Cruz.”
To borrow from one of my very favorite classic video games:
Judging from the expression, “What you don’t know can’t hurt you,” Sinema must be practically invulnerable.
I feel confident that both sides have shown that they don't give a shit about what the public consensus on an issue is.
The operative core of the “bipartisanship” ideal is, at the very least, a small amount of ideological overlap between the most liberal Republicans and the most conservative Democrats. That hasn’t been the case since the W days, at least, and definitely stopped being a thing once Barack Obama took office; the most conservative Democrat voted for health reform, and the most liberal Republican voted against it.
The Republican Party has been running to the right since I’ve been alive. The “middle ground” has been running to the right as a consequence. Anybody who champions bipartisanship is championing a slide into fascism.
There are studies finding no link between public opinion and government policy.
What studies are those?
CNBC report and two sources on a mid-decade Princeton report
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/03/27/majority-of-americans-support-progressive-policies-such-as-paid-maternity-leave-free-college.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
https://www.upworthy.com/amp/20-years-of-data-reveals-that-congress-doesnt-care-what-you-think-2637328701
But does the idea that the American Government is not really that responsive to the will of the people seem all that surprising?
Yes, but I wanted to include both of those on the Princeton one, edited for clarity
[also trying to post while portioning out dinner]
What’s that? Stop burning so much coal? Hang on, I need to go ask one of the last remaining Coal Barons if that’s a smart move.
Someone who used to work as a bartender wants to make it so folks can afford to live in safety and with dignity? In our House of Representatives!? This wild-eyed socialist naïveté cannot stand!
Et seq.
The most exhausting part for me is the kayfabe, and strangely seeing empirical evidence of its farcical nature in print is a balm to me. Lifts a load off my shoulders, even as it makes it that much harder for me to feel energized about doing anything about the problem.
Your Ad Here! Reasonable Rates!
A House that is triple its current size also costs a lot more to bribe. Of course the Senate exists and is a veritable bargain by comparison…
There's been a bunch of criticisms of that Princeton study since it's release. This is a decent summary of the bigger ones that I'm aware of:
https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-study
The TLDR is other people have gone through the data set they used and say the data doesn't support the extent or strength of the conclusions they are drawing from it.
eg -
You can read the whole thing and links to some of the papers there (one of the links is broken but you can just google the paper and find it)
This bit from one of the papers is also interesting:
And you can find plenty of other papers over the years on the issue of policy responsiveness to public opinion. Although I would say they almost universally agree that more work needs to be done. This was a decent collection of papers on the subject if you want to look, although obviously there's more elsewhere if you want to go looking:
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756223/obo-9780199756223-0103.xml
Basically, the idea that there is no connection between public opinion and government policy does not seem at all conclusive from what I've seen.
Our current congress woman elected in 2018, Kim Schrier, made the effort to actually drive around our district to meet as many constituents as possible.
That's 7,000 square miles and near 800,000 people. If she never slept and talked to everyone every day she'd have to meet with 2,000 people a day for 15 minutes each. No one is benefiting from it.
The GOP's singular legislative achievement during Trump's presidency was also the least popular bill to pass since public opinion on bills has been tracked. In contrast, BBB contains policies that are very popular across the ideological spectrum and it has been stifled by the elites.
Considering how few bills actually get through Congress that aren't a blank check to the Pentagon, it's hard not to draw the same conclusion the Princeton study did even from anecdotal evidence.
Carry on, thanks for reading.
Your Ad Here! Reasonable Rates!
1963!
That being said, the critical discussion of the original study is of course much appreciated.
Christ on a pogo stick the assholes are really coming out of the woodwork now.
Also my god Romney going on about how Biden hasn’t come to him about election reform. They’re all little princes waiting for their supplicants. How about you go to him, or your fellow republicans, or do anything of your own volition
Because he doesn't want voting rights. But outright saying that looks so bad even Chuck Todd might call him on it.
Lets try and stay grounded in reality here, there are plenty of doormats that are more aggressive than Chuck Todd.
A few things to consider imo when looking at this analysis
- the data is all from 1981-2002 I think
- The rich here are defined as people above the 90th percentile in income. So not necessarily as small as people might expect from the moniker. For 2020 this is $200k+. For the time period of the study it should be about $90k+ at the start and about $115k+ at the end.
- The middle are defined at the 50th percentile. (I'm not sure what range exactly around that) Which is about $67k today and was $37k to $42k during the time period of the study.
- So insofar as the "rich elite" are defined here, they still include a lot of people who are not millionaires and still work for a living and such. And this is household income too. I think one of the potentially mistaken assumptions Gilens/Page make is in assuming the 90th percentile and the 99th percentile must have a full set of common interests.
- nothing is measured in terms of how much they disagree, only whether a majority of any particular groups supports or opposes a policy. So we don't actually know the specific amount of agreement or disagreement on any particular policy.
- the rich and the middle agree 90% of the time in the data set
- the party in power actually causes swings in the data. I'm not sure if anyone does a specific analysis on how much that occurs, maybe I missed it, but it's mentioned in the papers.
- given for this time period Republicans maintained control of the President for most of this period and the House and Senate for much of it (there's only 2 years during this time period in which Democrats have a trifecta) this may present a potentially significant skew in the data. Especially given that blocking legislation is the most common kind of "win" defined here.
- the bias in what passes or doesn't is not actually that significant. The rich favour more conservative policies (ie - blocking more liberal policy and passing more conservative policy) in this analysis but only to a very mild degree. And the middle's preferences are basically flat. There is not a huge left vs right split in this rich vs middle fight.
- almost certainly a few more things I meant to mention I've forgotten while writing this all down
And as I said before, the most significant statement I think in the rebuttals (and also other papers independent of the Princeton one from Gilens/Page) is a big old "We don't fucking know for sure". There's questions over why there's such broad agreement in the first place and whether or not income is even the right way to try and divide these fights up, for instance.
There's a ongoing discussion in the Labor thread right now about how people's perception of what "poor" means is sorely outdated to the reality of everyday life.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
And this was his literal argument to the constitutional convention as to the necessity of a legislative house of “wisdom and virtue” which would protect the interests of the landed gentry: The Senate.
Great experiment my ass
Chuck Todd isn't questioning Romney for shit because he's a Republican. He's not even like a serious-but-still-conservative anchor like Chris Wallace, he's a very loyal Republican that works for NBC and only invites other Republicans (mostly still in office) on his show to give GOP talking points. There is no individual more responsible for the whitewashing the insurrectionists in the GOP than that motherfucker.