[資訊] A Political System Utterly Unresponsive to the Poor

[swallow73 (吃素，減碳，救地球)]

A Political System Utterly Unresponsive to the Poor
http://tinyurl.com/58mykg
TPMCafe
By Larry Bartels - May 16, 2008, 2:29PM

Anyone who has been following my posts in the past few days will have
surmised that Unequal Democracy is a rather pessimistic book. But I've saved
the most pessimistic finding for last. It concerns the ramifications of
economic inequality for the workings of our political system. While Americans
have a good deal of tolerance for economic inequality, that tolerance is
predicated on the "national myth" that we enjoy "full civic equality despite
material differences," as Michael Kinsley once put it. Cynics may doubt that
"full civic equality" is a reality - but even they should be dismayed by the
extent of inequality in the contemporary American political system.

I have measured the responsiveness of U.S. senators to the views of
constituents with different incomes - distinguishing people in the bottom,
middle, and top thirds of the national income distribution. The results show
that senators' roll call votes are moderately strongly related to the views
of middle-class constituents, and somewhat more strongly related to the views
of affluent constituents. (The relative weight of affluent constituents is
noticeably stronger for Republican senators than for Democratic senators.)
What is most striking, however, is that there is no evidence of any
discernible responsiveness to the preferences of constituents in the bottom
third of the income distribution. The views of tens of millions of people
with nothing in common but their low incomes seem to be utterly ignored by
their elected representatives. Insofar as they get what they want with
respect to policy, it is only because their views happen to correspond with
those of affluent and middle-class people - or, even more importantly, with
the partisan and ideological impulses of the senators themselves.


One common reaction to these findings is, "Of course elected officials ignore
poor people - they don't vote." However, the fact of the matter is that
millions of them do vote, and they still get ignored. My analysis allowed for
differences in responsiveness attributable to turnout, general levels of
political attentiveness, and contact with elected officials and their staffs.
I found that voters' views weigh no more heavily than non-voters views in
influencing the choices made by their elected officials. Even after taking
account of differences in responsiveness attributable to turnout,
attentiveness, and contacting, most of the disparity in responsiveness to
affluent and poor constituents remains.

This pattern of unresponsiveness to low-income constituents holds for both
Democratic and Republican senators. It holds across the whole range of issues
that come before Congress, including salient roll call votes on such issues
as the minimum wage, domestic spending, and civil rights. It also holds for a
variety of salient votes on abortion - an issue where specifically economic
interests might be expected to have little traction.

My pessimistic findings are strikingly supported by the separate findings of
my Princeton colleague Martin Gilens, who has analyzed almost 2,000 survey
questions measuring Americans' preferences regarding a wide variety of
national policy issues. For each issue, Gilens examined whether a policy
change supported or opposed by various segments of the public was
subsequently adopted. He found a strong statistical relationship between the
views of affluent citizens and the subsequent course of public policy, but a
much weaker relationship for less affluent citizens. When he limited his
analysis to issues on which rich people and poor people had divergent
preferences, he found that the well-off were vastly more likely to see their
views reflected in subsequent policy changes. Gilens concluded that
"influence over actual policy outcomes appears to be reserved almost
exclusively for those at the top of the income distribution."

The eminent political scientist Robert Dahl once suggested that "a key
characteristic of a democracy is the continued responsiveness of the
government to the preferences of its citizens, considered as political
equals." By that standard, contemporary America hardly seems to qualify.
While cynics will not be surprised to hear that poor people are less than
equal in our political system, even they should be shocked and disturbed by
the strength of the empirical evidence suggesting that the views of millions
of poor Americans are utterly ignored by their elected representatives. As
Gilens put it, "representational biases of this magnitude call into question
the very democratic character of our society."



                                                本文願意開放自由轉載

--
Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I
made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I
said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and
while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in
prison, I am not free.  by Eugene V. Debs, five-time Socialist Party of
America candidate for President of the United States.


--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 122.127.66.144
※ 編輯: swallow73       來自: 122.127.66.144       (05/19 03:28)
推 NPLNT:實行小政府主義 減少政客的權利 不知道有沒有辦法減少這種政
→ NPLNT:府造成的人為不公平
→ swallow73:最近的NPR Political Junkie才請Ron Paul來當來賓,很湊
→ swallow73:巧的我在睡覺前聽了那個節目.http://tinyurl.com/6nofme
→ swallow73:N大也應該聽聽看,或是乾脆去買Paul的新書,應該會有找到
→ swallow73:知音的感覺(上面那個網站也提供了新書的部份內容.)
→ swallow73:N大的想法正好跟Paul的論點不謀而合,他說只要美國停止
→ swallow73:建立世界帝國的野心,撤裁所有的海外駐軍,停止將窮人所交
→ swallow73:的稅浪費像攻打伊朗這樣不人道又無實質效益的蠢事,維
→ swallow73:持小而美的政府,窮人的正義就能夠得到申張.
→ swallow73:若要堅持自由經濟,自由競爭的原則,這我想是右派意識型
推 NPLNT:謝謝吞嚥大 我很希望看看那本書
→ swallow73:態下最理想的解決方式了.
→ NPLNT:因為我自認是一個自由意志主義者
→ NPLNT:雖然說我在政治哲學方面的研究還是菜鳥
推 ncyc:如果真照Ron Paul所說裁掉海外駐軍，世界會立刻變得天翻地覆
→ ncyc:美國海外駐軍也是在警告某些國家不要亂來（沒有駐日美軍，共
→ ncyc:產黨一定會立刻越過台灣海峽）
→ swallow73:很可惜ncyc大沒現場call-in拿這個問題質問Paul,我挺有
→ swallow73:興趣看Paul會怎麼回答.
推 NPLNT:我猜可能是回答說這不是美國的納稅人該負責的吧...
推 ncyc:只不過世界一旦動亂不堪，美國企業獲利能力就會下降，交稅的
→ swallow73:徹掉在中東駐軍的部份,他的論點是美軍在當地的存在只會
→ ncyc:可不只一般納稅人，還有那些企業集團
→ swallow73:助長當地的反美意識,危及美國本土的安全.
→ ncyc:那地方沒有美國駐軍，就等著看阿拉伯國家自己互幹，然後油價
→ ncyc:繼續升高
推 NPLNT:我覺得這個問題目前可能還無解 可是全球化的腳步越來越快
→ NPLNT:遲早有一天能夠達成全世界的自由貿易 到時各國政府的主權就
→ NPLNT:會被削弱 就不會有需不需要駐外美軍的問題了
推 NPLNT:不過Ron Paul認為該維持國家主權的看法我並不認同