back
26 comments
I’ve lived in a few countries. My take is:

An oligarchy where leaders frequently change based mostly on merit, with a social ladder accessible to anyone, is as close as you get to social harmony. As long as everyone has a shot, society is generally happy. (Note that a functioning economy is also needed for this.)

Democracy is mostly a safeguard to kick out the Napoleons before it’s too late.

Also, if you have strong local politics (like in the US, UK, or Australia), you might see more impact from your vote, as opposed to countries where you vote for a party and they pretty much do what they want for their term.

How are you defining oligarchs? I feel like in practice this term is only used to describe Russian businessmen, so I’m not sure if everyone has the same understanding.
I think the definition of “oligarch” is being stretched a little in the article, so I’m using it for my argument. Is Elon Musk an oligarch? Is Zuckerberg an oligarch?

My point is that as long as those at the top rotate and everyone has a shot, whether they’re called oligarchs or not doesn’t make much difference to the common person.

This article was written in 2014
And it's about "answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002."
Not that oligarchy is good, but is democracy really good? Is it even really different? It is basically letting easily manipulated and uneducated people decide things. And they are manipulated by news media, which in turn is manipulated by the same powerful people this study claims are controlling policy. Today we have social media as well but most people think it’s bad - so how can they feel good about choices influenced by social media? Curious what hacker news users think, because I feel like my whole life democracy has only been talked about positively.
I forget where I read it, but no matter how popular a particular bill was with the general populace, it had a ~ 30% chance of passing whether it was universally reviled or loved. The probability was literally a flat line, indicating that voter sentiment had almost no impact on what was actually passed.

Now, what's interesting is when they plotted the same line vs corporate and special interest lobbyists. There was a near perfect correlation between the sentiment of those with money and the probability of the bill passing.

Americans are getting pretty frustrated with the fact that all of our political candidates are basically 'pre-approved' by the rich, and anger is redirecting to populist candidates. It's also contributing to the partisan divide as many Americans feel abandoned by the 'establishment'.

People think politicians like Trump are the problem, when really, they're the symptom of a system that serves corporate interests over that of it's citizens.

This is the crux of it. George Carlin had a bit that voting is about choosing which waiter serves you the food, but its always the same cooks in the kitchen who decide what you'll eat.
These days, in the US, you get 1 vote per each US Dollar in your portfolio.

>the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.

This is fully true, especially since Citizens United.

In the US not every vote has the same weight, so they can't be a democracy to begin with.
This is a pretty bad take. Many countries weigh population of voting regions. The idea is that the people in a smaller region with its own needs doesn't get its priorities relegated to oblivion just because no the same people live there than in a big city.

Not weighing votes by population alienates the rural voters.

The college vote has little to do with population. It might have started that way, but it seems to be more about artificially inflating one side of the vote these days. (To be fair, redistricting has been abused for this effect as well, although on a smaller scale.)

It makes it so it is possible to lose every popular vote, yet still win the election "by a landslide."

What other countries are doing this? I can't think of any.

I see your point, and the Electoral College may need some updating (there’s also gerrymandering, which is problematic). However, I’d argue that the “popular vote” is not the best approach.

For huge countries where people’s lives are very varied, I think you need something to equate regions to others. The ancient Greeks tried direct democracy, and it didn’t work. The Founding Fathers knew this and called direct democracy “anarchy.” Not far off from the truth if you ask me, and the Greeks are a great cautionary tale on this.

Representative democracy, strongly coupled with local representation and a two-party system (yes, yes, I know) is where it’s at. The two-party system forces local reps to align with the bloc that most represents their interests ahead of the election. If you look at Europe, many citizens vote for a party only to see them make alliances and concessions with other minority parties that they wouldn’t have approved (e.g., Spain with independence parties).

Many things need updating, but I think it’s a mistake to forget history and assume that the U.S. political system was just randomly put together. There’s a lot of interesting history to dig into there (for example, the Federalist Papers).

>The college vote has little to do with population.

You do realize the majority of electors are allocated by population, right?

Specifically, the Electoral College mirrors the allocation of Congress with D.C. added at the same allocation as the smallest State as a special bonus.

True, it's a republic.
This journal article has been thoroughly debunked three separate times. TLDR if you dig into the data, the middle class agree with the rich most of the time and in the small cases where they disagree, it’s a wash between who gets their way. So yes they have outsized influence, but no the US does not appear to be an oligarchy. More here: https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-...
Old article
Is this a surprise? Am I supposed to believe I have the same amount of influence over how Congress votes and what decisions the President makes as a billionaire has?

Is this even new? When America was founded, it was decided that "democracy" meant that only wealthy white men decide how things would be run. I assume everyone reading this is aware that in order to be a citizen and to vote you had to be: - wealthy (own land) - white (no people of color could vote) - male (women could not vote)

This country's founding was based upon protecting the power of wealthy white men and that has never changed in our entire history. Not once. Nor will it ever change. The system is carefully designed to enable the wealthy to control the levers of power (e.g. electoral college and not majority vote; and no restrictions upon using money to control political power).

As a Japanese-American, please stop saying I'm a crayon.
Reminder: Trump was elected in 2016 despite most of the "elites" backing Clinton, and her campaign outspending his 2:1.
Two camps of oligarchs taking turns with their hands on the wheel.
October Surprise, 2016. Not subtle.
Yeah, but how much did that actually change? I mean, the media sensationalized every little thing that happened, to make people feel as if the world was ending (or being saved, depending on the news outlet). However, Corporations still ran the country through their bought-and-paid-for U.S. and state representatives, just as in administrations before and after.
...and supported by the other oligarchs
And we saw the Powers That Be(tm) ("elites") pull every single card in their playbook with wanton abandon to take him out, this still remains the case.

One of the things I thank Trump for is making me realize democracy is really just another way for the Powers That Be(tm) to attain and maintain power, just a lot more subtlely compared to other methods. Trump for whatever reason momentarily managed to break that cycle, and he's paying for it.

I consider this both a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing in that I don't have to spend any of my precious time giving a fuck about my vote anymore, but it's a curse in that I also realize humanity hasn't changed much since our ape days.