Recently in popular media, their has been references to the nature of government under which we live. Scholars Gilens and Page looked at popular consensus on topics (what the people want) vs Other interests, mostly by political elite, lobbied interests and corporations, and they examined the outcome.
Basically what they found was that no matter how popular elite interests are they automatically have a 30% chance of passing, no matter how great the public opposition. However, a highly publicly supported measure, even if 99% of people support it, only has at maximum a thirty percent chance of passing. The source of support drastically changes the probability of a measure being passed.
An excerpt- "Clearly, when one holds constant net interest-group alignments and the preferences of affluent Americans, it makes very little difference what the general public thinks. The probability of policy change is nearly the same (around 0.3) whether a tiny minority or a large majority of average citizens favor a proposed policy change (refer to the top panel of figure 1). By contrast—again with other actors held constant— a proposed policy change with low support among economically-elite Americans (one out of five in favor) is adopted only about 18 percent of the time, while a proposed change with high support (four out of five in favor) is adopted about 45 percent of the time. Similarly, when support for policy change is low among interest groups (with five groups strongly opposed and none in favor) the probability of that policy change occurring is only .16, but the probability rises to .47 when interest groups are strongly favorable (refer to the bottom two panels of figure 1).41 When both interest groups and affluent Americans oppose a policy it has an even lower likelihood of being adopted (these proposed policies consist primarily of tax increases). At the other extreme, high levels of support among both interest groups and affluent Americans increases the probability of adopting a policy change, but a strong status quo bias remains evident. Policies with strong support (as defined above) among both groups are only adopted about 56 percent of the time (strongly favored policies in our data set that failed include proposed cuts in taxes, increases in tax exemptions, increased educational spending for K–12, college support, and proposals during the Clinton administration to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare)."
Link to study-
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
There has been some academic push back to this study-
Here-
http://rap.sagepub.com/content/2/4/2053168015608896
What are your thoughts?
Basically what they found was that no matter how popular elite interests are they automatically have a 30% chance of passing, no matter how great the public opposition. However, a highly publicly supported measure, even if 99% of people support it, only has at maximum a thirty percent chance of passing. The source of support drastically changes the probability of a measure being passed.
An excerpt- "Clearly, when one holds constant net interest-group alignments and the preferences of affluent Americans, it makes very little difference what the general public thinks. The probability of policy change is nearly the same (around 0.3) whether a tiny minority or a large majority of average citizens favor a proposed policy change (refer to the top panel of figure 1). By contrast—again with other actors held constant— a proposed policy change with low support among economically-elite Americans (one out of five in favor) is adopted only about 18 percent of the time, while a proposed change with high support (four out of five in favor) is adopted about 45 percent of the time. Similarly, when support for policy change is low among interest groups (with five groups strongly opposed and none in favor) the probability of that policy change occurring is only .16, but the probability rises to .47 when interest groups are strongly favorable (refer to the bottom two panels of figure 1).41 When both interest groups and affluent Americans oppose a policy it has an even lower likelihood of being adopted (these proposed policies consist primarily of tax increases). At the other extreme, high levels of support among both interest groups and affluent Americans increases the probability of adopting a policy change, but a strong status quo bias remains evident. Policies with strong support (as defined above) among both groups are only adopted about 56 percent of the time (strongly favored policies in our data set that failed include proposed cuts in taxes, increases in tax exemptions, increased educational spending for K–12, college support, and proposals during the Clinton administration to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare)."
Link to study-
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
There has been some academic push back to this study-
Here-
http://rap.sagepub.com/content/2/4/2053168015608896
What are your thoughts?
