Ten Things Political Scientists Know That You Don't
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/h...2010_Forum.pdf
Election season will be upon us soon. I figured this is a good time to post an article which points out that most of the "common sense" on politics that you'll be hearing about in the news is uncertain at best or wrong at worst. It's pretty much confined to research on American politics, but something is better than nothing.
Hope is the denial of reality
I've always thought of the American presidential election as partly non-democratic, stupidifying and shallow. I mean, TWFers research on their own to make up an opinion on the candidates. The majority of U. S. citizens, however, seem to be swayed by empty slogans, speeches and local show-offs. It's not so much the politician with the greatest politics that win, but the one who knows how to broadcast himself the most gracefully. Not to mention holds a fair amount of cash. The system does seem broken, right?
Tomorrow is like an empty canvas that extends endlessly, what should I sketch on it?
Read reasons #1 and #10.
For those interested in a political science explanation of the success and failure of the recent "revolutions" in the Middle East: http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/0...e-of-dictators
Hope is the denial of reality
You're fooling yourself if you think any place else is any different.Originally Posted by Kazuha Vinland
I agree with you to some extent, but i think the more educated the populace the higher expectations (threshold needed) to garner votes. I really do think the political debates and politics in other nations would be less shallow than ours, what does the people that live overseas (non-America) think? Do you feel your politics are incredibly dumb and shallow as many Americans feel about our current system (which only works, btw, because of a majority of either apathetic, and/or ignorant voters)?You're fooling yourself if you think any place else is any different.
Have you seen who gets elected in Latin America?
Hope is the denial of reality
It just logically follows that the higher level of education the more "sway" needed. They've been trained how to think a bit, and encountered a lot of different views. My hypothesis is if you look at the average level of education of the active voters the higher that is, the more "advanved" the politics of that nation will be. Wiggin found data for RB, maybe he can confirm that with a chart. Only issue is how to determine level of advancedness, it's easy to recognize, hard to define. I guess i'd use a couple metric % of dialogue on the issues verses % of negative add campaigning/red herring arguments, that and the detail to which arguments are expressed (i think this second metric is the key one). The higher that is the more advanced the political landscape is.
Edit: That's not to say their politicians are better than ours or anything, it's just each politicians are playing the game presented to them.
Good luck measuring how "advanced" a country's politics are, though I have a feeling you're equating advanced with providing a welfare state.
Hope is the denial of reality
Politically advanced = most in agreement with me, doesn't it?
Am I? You see, we got 7 parties with their own takes on politics that constantly voice themselves in debates. It's not just the prime minister who grabs the attention by being the big decision-maker, but the whole discussion forum that holds such great interest amongst the people. Through weekly down-to-earth televised debates (where they discuss actual matters, not just see it as some kind of PR scheme), people get pretty darn enlightened. When the day arrives when there are elections, there is naturally a campaign going on as part of the power struggle, but it's nonetheless just an extension of the spotlight that politics always has. Most people aged 18 and above will NOT be swayed by standalone local show-offs, but rely on the intel they have gathered through media and debates over the last 4 years + a bulletin list of political standpoints in various categories.
I think that the average ignorance in the U.S. toward politics is darn much higher than it is here. Your politics are fronted by personalities, not parties with set views - as in actual politics. Gay marriages, personal pasts and relations, so much irrelevant stuff is pulled ahead to decide whether or not a candidate is suited as president or not. Fact is, it rarely matters, and you fuck up every time in the elections because you do not have a sufficient knowledge basis about the parties' real politics to vote.
Tomorrow is like an empty canvas that extends endlessly, what should I sketch on it?
And yet the amount of people who change the party they vote for from one election to another is pretty damn low. This wouldn't be the case if people were so easily persuaded.
I'd also like to know just how many people watch your weekly political debates.
Hope is the denial of reality
Because they are being fundamentalistic about things, or because they actually find the offer to be the same every time?
About 10% of the population are watching just one debate show. If you ask for the number of politics related programs in general, then it's almost unavoidable, as the media always are on top of the ongoing debates. When one ends, another one starts and hence it always reaches the public eye.
Tomorrow is like an empty canvas that extends endlessly, what should I sketch on it?
Are they easily persuaded by style or are they fundamentalist and refuse to be persuaded? You do realize those two things are mutually exclusive, right?
That means 90% are not...
Hope is the denial of reality
No, there is also a heavily politically driven satire show that is watched by 20% of the total population. When you reckon that 66% of the population is aged between 15-64, which I'd like to call the politically active age in this case, that'd mean at least one third follow politics closely. That is a high number, okay.
Tomorrow is like an empty canvas that extends endlessly, what should I sketch on it?
Some places are different, actually. I think democracy works more smoothly *and much more like itself, without anti-democratic spins* on smaller scales. So on local levels, or in some of the rather tiny countries, it may work out much like it's supposed to.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
#8 was put nicely. Every time GG yells at special interests I cringe.
Sure I can agree with that; on smaller scales people don't have the guidance of their political affiliations. What is the Democrat position on lawn ordinance? They wind up having to think for themselves and it's easier to get things approached as problems to be solved rather than ideological battles to be won. But that's also not what I was talking about when I made the statement you quoted.
Until you see all the corruption and petty tyranny that happens at the local level...
Hope is the denial of reality
Not historically accurate. You can get a fairly well defined party structure with a few hundred thousand people.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
There's a lot of Big Fish in a Small Pound syndrome in local government, as well as people who are just outright useless. But I don't know if you can say if this because it's local government (smaller talent pool) or just because there's very little voter scrutiny of locally elected officials because all of the power is perceived to be with the central government so morons, thugs and weasels can get and hold power in a way they couldn't get away with at a national level. Turn out in local election is generally pretty low after all. I couldn't even name my local MP, let alone members of the local council.
Also, a lot of local government issues are pretty provincial and petty compared to national ones, and also less driven by party ideology, so people are hardly likely to be as passionate about them.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
There's certainly some truth to that, but would we want political decisions to be done on the basis of individual favors and petty grudges instead of adherence to a pretty universalistic ideology? I don't know about you, but I'd rather people vote a certain way because they are Democrats or Republicans than because the guy running for office is employing their son.
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
