Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.

Study Concludes USA is an Oligarchy

posted by LaminatorX on Thursday April 17 2014, @10:26AM   Printer-friendly
from the Also:-Sky-is-Blue dept.

Hairyfeet writes:

A study by Princeton and Northwestern universities shows that a small group of elite have control over the general population and the government only supports the rich and powerful while the masses have no say whatsoever. The 42 page report concludes "we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Study Concludes USA is an Oligarchy | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 71 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 1) by urza9814 on Thursday April 17 2014, @10:03PM

    by urza9814 (3954) on Thursday April 17 2014, @10:03PM (#32852) Journal

    One potential alternative he suggests is instead of giving all candidates equal amounts from an election fund and limiting donations, make it so that all candidates get matching funds equal to their opponents' fundraising.

    Not a bad idea, but Obama raised $220 million for his reelection campaign in 2011 alone. For Dems vs. GOP that might not take a ton of money since both will presumably get the same amount...but then you've gotta cut a check for a quarter of a BILLION dollars to every single third party on the ballot.

    More to the point though, he suggests that these kinds of reforms won't really mean much, because the people who are selected to run are all acceptable to oligarchy.

    Only true of the two major parties. And it's not so much that only those acceptable to the oligarchy get to run -- rather, only those acceptable get enough funding to win. If you give a Rocky Anderson or Jill Stein the exact same amount of funding as Barack Obama, they might stand a pretty good chance!

  • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday April 17 2014, @10:28PM

    by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday April 17 2014, @10:28PM (#32866) Journal

    Only true of the two major parties. And it's not so much that only those acceptable to the oligarchy get to run -- rather, only those acceptable get enough funding to win. If you give a Rocky Anderson or Jill Stein the exact same amount of funding as Barack Obama, they might stand a pretty good chance!

    Totally with you -- I voted for Jill Stein. In fact I won't vote for either a GOP or DNC candidate ever. I only vote third parties, or if there is none available, for my cat (*).

    By the same token, I totally understand that what I'm doing is protest voting. Which is a valid use of one's vote, certainly more valid than voting for a "lesser evil" candidate because the fact is, you are still voting for evil. It's also better than staying home and getting lumped in with the apathetic. So I don't consider it a waste to vote for my cat or a third party candidate while it certainly would be a waste to vote for someone I hate only because he or she has a chance of winning. Still, I also recognize that until at least a third of the vote shows up as a protest vote like mine, the DNC and GOP won't care. If protest votes hit 20-30% though, they might start to cater to protest voters.

    (*) If you want to vote for my cat, his name is "Boris" btw. "Boris the Cat" would be our best president ever -- he likes sleeping by a warm fire in the late fall/winter/early spring, and in a sunny spot during late spring/summer/early fall. That's about all he would do for 4 years besides eat and use the litter box.