Which is the most accurate theory of American politics?

[Orser67]

A study (linked below, in addition to a WaPo summary) posits that "average citizens have little or no independent influence” on the policy-making process." They offer four theories of American governance:

Majoritarian Electoral Democracy: public opinion (the "median voter") drives policy.
Majoritarian Pluralism: Interest groups representing large groups of people (e.g. AARP, NRA, unions) determine policy.
Biased Pluralism: Business-backed interest groups (e.g. the Chamber of Commerce, the AMA) determine policy.
Economic Elite Domination: Economic elites ("the 1%") determine policy.

Which model of politics do you think is closest to reality in the US?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/08/rich-people-rule/
http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf

[Cory]

Majoritarian Pluralism.

[publicunofficial]

Majoritarian Pluralism.

[RosettaStoned]

 Biased Pluralism.

[Sol]

Some mixture of the first 3, with the most of #3.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Certainly not the first or the last.  Maybe a combination of 2 and 3, but that doesn't really account for quite a bit of American politics.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Like I frickin' know.

[Del Tachi]

Where's the "bureaucratic elite" option?

Political power is concentrated in the hands of unelected bureaucrats - from cabinet level officials all the way to mailmen - who are responsible for turning legislative and judicial initiatives into executive action.   

[morgieb]

A mix of 2 and 3. 3 is closer, I guess.

[Mordecai]

Biased Pluralism.

[eric82oslo]

It's a combination of the NRA, the military-industrial complex and the 1% which drive politics. So a combination of options 2 and 4.

[Supersonic]

It's probably a bit of everything (moderate hero), but I vouched for option three as interest groups are a genuine part of forming public policy.

*actually reading that back, I probably should have voted two, but business interests trump unions in this day and age.

[Lief 🗽]

If 3 or 4 were the answer, then how come we still have medicare and social security and medicaid and fairly progressive tax rates?

[SteveRogers]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/american-public-gets-exactly-what-it-deserves-for,18401/

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Choosing any of the four would be an absurd oversimplification

[muon2]

Policy is driven by a tug of war among groups that command large numbers (ie option 2) and those that command a significant portion of the economy (ie option 3). The 1% is generally not a factor except when they are acting in the capacity of an economic leader (ie not option 4 except when it's option 3). The median voter is also generally not a factor, except when there is a sudden swing of opinion in the electorate such that it becomes a driving issue such as gun control in states after Aurora and Newtown. In that case a group with large representation will often take up the public cause to drive actual policy (ie not option 1 except when it's option 2).

The outcome of the tug of war on each policy initiative is fueled by the relative strengths of the sides provided at each election. Note that the sides can be split within the groups of options 2 and 3 as well as between the groups in those respective options. Policy for a state or nation often affects a wide swath of the public where individuals will have widely divergent views. Part of the prominence of large organizations and large interests is that they already represent some balance point among their members on an issue. Policy making is then reduced in scope to striking the weighted balance among the centers of the large interests.

[Mordecai]

If 3 or 4 were the answer, then how come we still have medicare and social security and medicaid

Republicans have been trying to dismantle them for decades and tried to do it as recently as two years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_Prosperity

fairly progressive tax rates?

Clinton made the tax rates more progressive in 1993, then Bush did a broad across the base cut, then Obama extended those cuts for the lower brackets and let them expire for higher brackets. So that one has been a tug of war depending on who controlled the Presidency and Congress.

Edit: And Romney tried to be sneaky with that one by proposing a 20% broad across the base but paying for it with the repeal of "loopholes" like the mortgage interest deduction.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, #1 is certainly the furthest from being correct. LOL, the mythical centrist swing voter who votes just on the issues.

[AggregateDemand]

If 3 or 4 were the answer, then how come we still have medicare and social security and medicaid

Republicans have been trying to dismantle them for decades and tried to do it as recently as two years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_Prosperity

Medicare/Medicaid cost more per capita than most public healthcare systems, yet they only cover 33% of the US population. That's what happens when the government is the customer, and the patient is not the customer.

Social Security is pay-as-you-go defined benefit pension--an arrangement outlawed in the private sector for being too unpredictable and reliable. When PAYG public defined-benefit pension arrangements meet the Baby Boom, US entitlement spending increases to 17% of GDP in the next 25 years. That's almost our entire federal budget.

Republicans are trying to dismantle stupid. Liberals should be helping, especially those overseas who will be negatively affected if the US middle class is destroyed by a pension bomb. I'm sure the global credit crisis was enjoyable?

[Randy Bobandy]

We're ruled by the economic elite.

[pbrower2a]

2 going to 4.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Option four.

[Redalgo]

I concur with muon2 that Group Theory is the best single model for explaining the process, though I also agree with Crab Cake that the poll oversimplifies matters here.

To one extent or another it is worth taking into account rationalism, incrementalism, game theory, and the influence of elites. If I had to pick one of the four theories listed in the poll, however, it would be Majoritarian Electoral Democracy tainted by varying degrees of ignorance and corruption among elected officials, administrative bureaucrats, interest groups vying to have some pull in the process, those who work on behalf of political parties, the electorate at large, etc. but not enough of it either from above or below to make the U.S. a full-blown oligarchy or ochlocracy.

Edit: Going back, I think I misread the point of the poll. Policymaking itself involves pluralism rather than electoral democracy, though I am not sure either option 2 or 3 quite fits.