
US is an oligarchy, not a democracy (2014) - kushti
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
======
hartator
> 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.

These people never went to Russia.

~~~
sigfubar
I'm a Russian citizen. I can tell you firsthand that the US is as bad as
Russia, with one exception: Russia is honest about what it is, while the US
plays democracy games and pretends to be a "free" country.

Edit: The downvotes are a sign that I've stepped on your sore toe. Go ahead, I
have karma to spare, but remember my words next time you vote in an imaginary
election.

~~~
nopriorarrests
Dude, I mean... come on. After DJT was elected, you can call US elections
whatever you want, but not imaginary. This shit is 100% real.

~~~
hnbroseph
"real" is an interesting notion. when you're presented with two thoroughly
awful options, and when the ability to select between the two said options is
contingent on dodgy information, murky details and unanswered questions, is it
really a proper choice? i almost feel like it's making important life
decisions while one beer away from a blackout.

~~~
siffland
Wasn't some of the "dodgy" information allegedly supplied by Russian backed
accounts on Facebook and other platforms.

Maybe instead of making the decisions one beer away from a blackout we should
do what the Persians did.

“If an important decision is to be made, they [the Persians] discuss the
question when they are drunk, and the following day the master of the house
where the discussion was held submits their decision for reconsideration when
they are sober. If they still approve it, it is adopted; if not, it is
abandoned. Conversely, any decision they make when they are sober, is
reconsidered afterwards when they are drunk.” ― Herodotus

------
nine_k
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
_actually care and know_.

To note: the entire Switzerland's population is 8.5M, about the size of 5
boroughs of New York City. They have _twenty six_ cantons, all with severely
different policies, and 2222 municipalities. Of course most voting occurs at
municipal level, then cantonal level.

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.

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.

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.

~~~
LMYahooTFY
I think this outlines the core issues more than most of the responses thus
far.

Our system of governance hasn't scaled as effectively in distributing
democratic decision making as many may wish, and the interconnectivity we're
developing is making it more pronounced.

~~~
mental1896
Your concision is inspirational.

------
dmix
> 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 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.

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 _every_
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?

~~~
rafiki6
You obviously have an agenda in your comment. Do you have any evidence that
suggests the expansion of government correlates strongly to income inequality?
Scandinavian countries are a great example of countries with large government
and low inequality.

~~~
dmix
People always pretend the US government size is small and tiny countries in
Scandinavia have giant ones. Yet few countries have the massive number of
agencies and law the US does. The size of population certainly plays a role in
this but ultimately it affects the average person operating in such a society.

I'm not talking about taxation. I'm talking about the size of the
administrative state, ie. the amount of intervention the government engages in
in the economy and socially.

~~~
tanderson92
The size of the administrative state may not be a relevant metric in
evaluating the extent of actions taken to equalize voice in decision
making/policy based on economic power, or to limit economic inequality more
generally. (In fact, one view of the large administrative state is that it's a
moat designed precisely to the advantage of established actors.)

------
scythe
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 _only_ adding seats,
so that nobody loses their Congressman.

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.

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.

------
csbartus
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.

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.

These new regimes have an easy job since the old system bleeds from all parts.

I’m a big fan of democracy and oligarchies are the way back, not the way
forward.

However I’m skeptic if humanity is capable to invent a forward looking new
system in the next years.

------
pjmorris
See also: 'The Quiet Coup' [0], Simon Johnson, 2009.

[0] [https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-
qui...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-
coup/307364/)

EDIT: Fixed link per comment

~~~
aerophilic
Corrected link (save you a google search):
[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-
qui...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-
coup/307364/)

------
analyst74
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.

~~~
maccio92
Because it's not true

~~~
Supermancho
Bush, Obama, Trump. These are not religious figures. Past POTUS were public
servants and they necessarily, do not represent America and arguably couldn't
when they are elected. I'm sure glad the members of the political oligarchy of
the last 50 years all came out to see Bush's body, but he served 1 term and
did the job and he got older and died. No need for the Pharaoh worship week.
Either POTUS is an elected position open to any qualified candidate or it's a
big money elitist club G Carlin described where they like to engage in pomp
and circumstance. While the truth may be fuzzy, I have my own opinion.

~~~
moorhosj
==I'm sure glad the members of the political oligarchy of the last 50 years
all came out to see Bush's body, but he served 1 term and did the job and he
got older and died.==

To be fair, Bush I also served the country as Vice President, UN Ambassador,
Director of the CIA, US Representative, and Navy Lieutenant.

------
r721
Previous discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10819538](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10819538)

------
Mikeb85
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.

------
Kinnard
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. . . .

------
tbirrell
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.

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.

------
wslh
I wonder why US politics has not been positively hacked yet. Not talking about
the Russians using FB but something revolutionary but not violent.

~~~
samstave
See mormons in the IC and Scientologists in the IRS/Treasury, and Verizon in
the FCC....

I'd say it's been hacked pretty well - but only for cerrtain specific
interests.

------
gshubert17
Dated [2014]

------
anoncoward111
We just have really good political theatre that gives the illusion of a lively
democracy,:)

