US not a democray new study says
 

A new study from Princeton spells bad news for American democracy?namely, that it no longer exists.


The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy," they write, "while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

The United States was never a democracy. I would think that a university with such a reputation as Princeton would not need to do a study to figure this out.

QTF :thumbsup

Study is a study, studying even "obvious like" things is usually worthy, since you get real reference instead of some "my toe itches, so it's gonna rain".

This isn't an "obvious thing." It's the same as saying a TV needs electricity. It's written in our countries manual. The only study you need to read is the framework of our country. That's it.

We should expect such a conclusion from a socialist lefty such as yourself. Its hard to lose something you never had.

The United States was founded as a Representative Republic not a Democracy. It is closer to a Democracy now than it was at the founding.

I'm not sure why it's so hard for people to call it what it is- a democratic republic. Using thwe right terms and I can see the conclusions made in the study.

Sorry, I don't have your country's manual. Maybe you could post it to me?

here's the report, I'll have to read it later, I've just only read the abstract

https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/G...s%203-7-14.pdf

I don't know about representative republic, but I know a thing or two about representative democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

For every "LOL. It's obvious"/ "It's built that way" guy I would like to ask question: If it's so obvious that you don't have and or even couldn't have democracy, why you have elections? For amusement perhaps?

If you stated what country you are from then maybe it would become clear as to why you doubt that statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#United_States

I am curious to know how they define "democracy".
In fact if you vote for people to give them the power, you are technically not in a democracy but in a republic...

The Internet Knows All http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html

What that has to do where I come from?

I doubt that USA is representetive republic, as there is no such term used, at least officially. The term is representative democracy.

Noooooooooo!! That is representative democracy.

For example UK has king (not republic), but it is representative democracy.

You would have to have your head way way way up your ass not to already think that at the very least

My previous addon.

"For example UK has king (not republic), but it is representative democracy."

Representative democracy is not synonym for republic or other way around.


"Representative democracy (also indirect democracy) is a variety of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.[1] All modern Western-style democracies are types of representative democracies; for example, the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and Germany is a parliamentary republic."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacyclosis

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacycl...de_Polybe2.png

It doesn't matter what you believe. It does not change what is.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic

<when asked by a passerby what sort of government the constitutional convention had formulated for the new nation, Benjamin Franklin memorably replied, ?A republic, if you can keep it?>

Daahh, representative democracy and republic don't exclude each other. You have representative democracy that is republic (more narrow definition), but there is no such thing as representative republic.

anyway the meaning of the word democracy is not so obvious, so they have to define the word.

Let's not get polyps into this, I am too drunk and tired. But there you go. Polyp I mean. (well.. nevermind, those were too groce).

And there is the real answer. Unreal the shit that some of the "studies" these days come up with.

Well, the point of the study is that USA hasn't neither direct democracy or representative democracy. Although I guess it is still republic as there is still voting (like in Soviet Union).

"The government was formed in 1789, making the United States one of the world's first, if not the first, modern national constitutional republic.

The United States government is based on the principle of federalism, in which power is shared between the federal government and state governments. The details of American federalism, including what powers the federal government should have and how those powers can be exercised, have been debated ever since the adoption of the Constitution. Some make the case for expansive federal powers while others argue for a more limited role for the central government in relation to individuals, the states or other recognized entities."

You didn't even understand what it studied. This is so fucking joke.

Thank you Robbie. For a minute I thought I'd lost my mind.

Only revisionist history will say otherwise. Which is exactly what the OP's referenced study is.

not really like soviet union

Not exactly, but it was republic (by name), as does USA, but it sure as hell wasn't representative democracy, as it seems that neither is USA.

Its not a democracy. I'll give you Constitutional Republic. But that was not what it was founded as.

It doesn't matter what sources I cite you still shoot it down. I'm going one more time and thats it. I'm done with it. You're either ignorant or trolling or both.

A Constitutional Republic is the current form of government in the United States. However in recent years, many people have criticized the federal government for moving away from a Constitutional Republic, as defined by the Constitution, and towards a pure democracy.[1]
http://www.conservapedia.com/Constitutional_Republic

Constitutional republic doesn't exclude representative democracy.

Call it whatever you like, it is still irrelevant regarding that study, that is the subject of this thread. It didn't study you having direct democracy and then "Oh, no!, They don't have direct democracy." Try to understand what it even studied.

Why don't you fill me in with all of your immense intelligence and knowledge?
Also good to see that you have cognitive abilities to reach across the internet and gauge what another person does or does not understand.

You are special! :)

The subject of the study and it's conclusions are yours to read. I haven't done that study. About your understanding regarding this subject (alone), I was using high tech measures, like internet, written information and GFY, and I cannot emphasis enough the last one.


The study:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...concludes.html

https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/G...s%203-7-14.pdf

I believe the study is trying to question the government's actual ability or desire to serve the average person. It points out that it now serves big business and big interest. It is not making a statement about the technical makeup of how the government works.

We are a representative republic. We elect leaders who are supposed to represent our best interests and desires. This study is stating that the wealthy and powerful now have such influence over the government and election system that it doesn't really matter who we vote for or which party is in power, neither is actually going to serve the people more than they will serve those with cash who helped them get elected.

There are some independents that get elected, but at this point there are so few of them it is rare that they actually have any affect or influence.

we have never been a democracy, We are a republic. Just say the Pledge of Allegiance. But even our leaders have limits or use to have limits in the Constitution. But that has been over ridden by power hungry bureaucrats

What most people don't know is that the Founding Fathers based the American Republic on the Iroquois Confederacy.

238 years later I'd say it's served the people well. The Founding Fathers didn't have a whole lot of faith that it would.

that is crazy...must be because i have been saying it for over a decade...and i was called a conspiracy theorist nutjob.
so obviously princeton is full of wackjobs also.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
Well played sir...well played.

Elections are a money making process by the elite to bilk the dimwits who think they have some kind of voice out of whatever cash they can.

Noam Chomsky has said, and I believe him, that americans have not truly elected a president since Kennedy.

Given the choice between Wikipedia and GFY, GFY of course is the benchmark of higher learning.

Really? So how come they are "spreading democracy" over oil countries around the world if they are not democratic themselves?

And what is the system if not democracy there?

Well according to that definition - there is no single democratic country in the world.

Aint that the truth.

it appears that I'm the only one here who actually read the article and not just sound bites of other's opinion on it.

can't really add to an argument where people don't use the actual source of the argument to form their view. Peeps should appreciate having access to original documents so we can read them for ourselves and form our own views on them, not read other's views on them and form an opinion based on an opinion.

Nevertheless, the report delves deeply into the various interpretations of our democratic republic via policy and not once refers to the USA as a democracy based system.

What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute
troubling news for advocates of “populistic” democracy, who want governments to respond
primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our Gilens and Page Testing Theories of American Politics 23
23
findings indicate, the majority does not rule -- at least not in the causal sense of actually
determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or
with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias
built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy
change, they generally do not get it.

https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/G...s%203-7-14.pdf