applekern's review against another edition
3.0
This took me forever, cause the authors built it up like a 400 page academic paper. Also while they do tackle the topic of why current democracy practices do not work, they refrain from saying it this outright and fail to propose, discuss and evaluate alternatives. Overall, I feel like this book could have been more than it is now. It‘s always easy to critique without having to provide a solution - there‘ll always be something wrong to find.
jasonfurman's review against another edition
4.0
Democracy for Realists is a timely book of empirically and theoretically rigorous political science. It's strong suit is criticism--Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels painstakingly amass evidence and arguments against what they describe as the two leading theories of democracy. The first is the "folk theory" that Democracy allows the will of the people to be expressed, something they dismantle with evidence on voters' lack of knowledge in both choosing their representatives and, especially, in referendums. They also throw in some Arrow Impossibility Theorem arguments around the indeterminacy of the "will of the people" even if everyone was well informed but had views that differed along multiple dimensions. The second theory they dismantle is the agency theory or "throw the bums out", where they show that much of the voting based on performance is actually about luck (e.g., natural disasters or shark attacks) not performance. I would note, however, that they may overstate their case--disasters shift votes by a few percentage points, which can tilt an election but only because the two sides were within a few percentage points of each other to begin with which, itself, merits an explanation--like the median voter theorem.
The book attempts to develop an alternative theory based on people's group identities and social psychology. They have some fascinating analysis--for example, the shift of white Southerners from the Democratic to Republican Party in the Civil Rights era was concentrated less among people who had specific issue preferences on racial issues and more among people who identified as Southern. They also find that Democratic and Republican men have views of abortion that line up with their political leanings, but that it was their views on abortion that changed to match their parties not the other way around. As interesting as all of this is, Achen and Bartels essentially admit is just an early attempt at an alternative normative and positive theory of democracy. And the policy recommendations in the book are limited to the last few pages, are relatively thin (e.g., less economic inequality and money in politics), and do not necessarily follow uniquely from the analysis itself.
The book attempts to develop an alternative theory based on people's group identities and social psychology. They have some fascinating analysis--for example, the shift of white Southerners from the Democratic to Republican Party in the Civil Rights era was concentrated less among people who had specific issue preferences on racial issues and more among people who identified as Southern. They also find that Democratic and Republican men have views of abortion that line up with their political leanings, but that it was their views on abortion that changed to match their parties not the other way around. As interesting as all of this is, Achen and Bartels essentially admit is just an early attempt at an alternative normative and positive theory of democracy. And the policy recommendations in the book are limited to the last few pages, are relatively thin (e.g., less economic inequality and money in politics), and do not necessarily follow uniquely from the analysis itself.
matthew_p's review against another edition
4.0
Four stars only because the authors weren’t able to provide concrete next steps. But a solid 4 stars because they point to solid scholarship that indicates that our understandings of and reactions to the 2016 election are deeply flawed on both sides of the political spectrum at the expense of most of the populous. We’re overdue for some serious rethinking of our political institutions and there’s not much appetite for that in favor of ensuring that “our” side wins next time.
stevereally's review against another edition
3.0
A couple of chapters get a little too technical with the statistical analysis for me (or any non-expert) to really understand fully, but overall it makes several very important points very effectively.
haoyang's review against another edition
3.0
Or 2.5 stars tbh.
I had really high hopes for this book, especially with the thought-provoking caption under the title ("Why elections do not produce responsive government"). But, personally, the first few chapters were long-winded and kept belabouring the same point: voters are not rational, therefore more popular control of government is not the way to go. Perhaps it is because I am not American so I do not suffer from the curse of democracy-worship ("the cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy!") and hence the sobering potential of this book was lost on me. Additionally, the question of why elections do not produce responsive government was not addressed at all until the end of the final chapter -- the bulk of the book was dedicated to presenting research (because it's meant to be convincing for fellow Western political scientists I guess) which sough to evince the authors' point that voters cannot be relied upon to vote rationally. Ok so the retrospective theory of voting is unconvincing, and the British political liberalism of the 19th century which argued that individual voters will vote according to individual policy preferences and ideology is not a strong foundation for modern democracy, but how does this lead to unresponsive government?????????????????????????????????????
Throughout the book, the authors just kept meandering around points that have been discussed, even mentioning Madison's Federalist No.10 several times to prove the same point -- that there should be a balance between popular control and expert judgment -- and at times it just felt so confusing, messy, and lacking in direction.
And then we get to the only important part of any book on governance: the authors' suggestions. But in this book, as the authors set out in a disclaimer early on, their suggestions provide more questions than answers. In fact, their suggestions (4 if I recall) filled up just two pages. Maybe this book was written for theoretical, and not practical, purposes. But for me, I did not really learn anything new?
People vote for parties primarily because of their identity (e.g. gays tend to vote for the Democratic Party). Is that a new idea? I don't think so.
Isn't it pretty clear that the two big parties in America are already appealing to the electorate's core identities?
The 'Realistic Theory of Democracy' just does not offer anything new in my opinion. Maybe it is really just to codify it into an intellectual theory, in which case that's an admirable pursuit I guess.
In fact, the most salient points they raised were probably their arguments against direct primaries, and referenda (both of which are more easily manipulated by organised interests!). If I recall correctly, they mentioned the senselessness of term limits too, which I agree with. Oh yeah and also the need to curb private financing of election campaigns.
The authors also explored a few notable case studies from the 20th century to elucidate their points and that was pretty informative for me! E.g. the Democratic Solid South and the drastic realignment from the 60s onwards, the JFK campaign, the Watergate scandal, the New Deal era, the abortion debate in the 80s/90s. But honestly I could have just read a history book for that. In fact, maybe I should have.
Even after writing this review, I still have not figured out what the author's thesis is. Whelp. I personally would not recommend reading this book... there's just too little meaningful substance for a 300 page book.
I had really high hopes for this book, especially with the thought-provoking caption under the title ("Why elections do not produce responsive government"). But, personally, the first few chapters were long-winded and kept belabouring the same point: voters are not rational, therefore more popular control of government is not the way to go. Perhaps it is because I am not American so I do not suffer from the curse of democracy-worship ("the cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy!") and hence the sobering potential of this book was lost on me. Additionally, the question of why elections do not produce responsive government was not addressed at all until the end of the final chapter -- the bulk of the book was dedicated to presenting research (because it's meant to be convincing for fellow Western political scientists I guess) which sough to evince the authors' point that voters cannot be relied upon to vote rationally. Ok so the retrospective theory of voting is unconvincing, and the British political liberalism of the 19th century which argued that individual voters will vote according to individual policy preferences and ideology is not a strong foundation for modern democracy, but how does this lead to unresponsive government?????????????????????????????????????
Throughout the book, the authors just kept meandering around points that have been discussed, even mentioning Madison's Federalist No.10 several times to prove the same point -- that there should be a balance between popular control and expert judgment -- and at times it just felt so confusing, messy, and lacking in direction.
And then we get to the only important part of any book on governance: the authors' suggestions. But in this book, as the authors set out in a disclaimer early on, their suggestions provide more questions than answers. In fact, their suggestions (4 if I recall) filled up just two pages. Maybe this book was written for theoretical, and not practical, purposes. But for me, I did not really learn anything new?
People vote for parties primarily because of their identity (e.g. gays tend to vote for the Democratic Party). Is that a new idea? I don't think so.
Isn't it pretty clear that the two big parties in America are already appealing to the electorate's core identities?
The 'Realistic Theory of Democracy' just does not offer anything new in my opinion. Maybe it is really just to codify it into an intellectual theory, in which case that's an admirable pursuit I guess.
In fact, the most salient points they raised were probably their arguments against direct primaries, and referenda (both of which are more easily manipulated by organised interests!). If I recall correctly, they mentioned the senselessness of term limits too, which I agree with. Oh yeah and also the need to curb private financing of election campaigns.
The authors also explored a few notable case studies from the 20th century to elucidate their points and that was pretty informative for me! E.g. the Democratic Solid South and the drastic realignment from the 60s onwards, the JFK campaign, the Watergate scandal, the New Deal era, the abortion debate in the 80s/90s. But honestly I could have just read a history book for that. In fact, maybe I should have.
Even after writing this review, I still have not figured out what the author's thesis is. Whelp. I personally would not recommend reading this book... there's just too little meaningful substance for a 300 page book.
tonstantweader's review
4.0
Democracy For Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government takes a long hard look at our cherished notions about democracy and stomps them into ashes. However, as painful as the process is, any long observer of politics and elections will know they are telling us, with substantial evidence to make their case, some very hard truths. For those of us who hope for a more just world, it is time to pay attention.
There is no good news here. The authors Christopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels analyze decades of electoral data and research, their own and that of other political scientist researchers. From shark attacks to deficits, Achen and Bartels demonstrate that voters lack the information and skills needed to make informed, rational decisions. Even the most informed and politically engaged voters vote based more on group identity than ideology or issue preferences. In fact, people choose their parties often based on social identity and then adjust their policy preferences to match their party. In contrast to most of the pundits, Achen and Bartels recognize that whiteness is a social identity and identity politics are not limited to people of color and women.
Aches and Bartels believe that most reforms are misguided, adding to the problem rather than improving it. Reducing the power of political parties has reduced the pressure to compromise and made the partisan divide wider. It has also made politicians less responsive to voters.
I can see this happening here in Oregon, the increased use of initiative and referendum has led to fiscal chaos, with voters demanding spending projects at the same time they vote for tax cuts. Referendum has led to a passive legislature who no longer tries to address the failed revenue system because there is no reward for having the political courage to vote for taxes when they will be referred and defeated at the next election. Likewise, many reformers want term limits, stripping politicians of expertise and empowering lobbyists. Reducing the power of parties has led the demagogue Trump whom no responsible party would nominate, the end of compromise and hyper-partisanship.
They argue that reform should recognize the importance of parties. I am sure the clamor to eliminate super delegates is exactly the opposite of the reform necessary. We saw the powerlessness of Republican super delegates to save their party. The removal of ear marks has reduced the power of party discipline to govern efficiently and effectively – damaging our national credit rating.
Democracy For Realists is not happy reading. It takes our glib truisms such as the cure for the problems of democracy is more democracy. I think recognizing that it is impossible for voters to understand every issue, it makes sense to strengthen parties as a proxy because they do cluster ideologically. There is expertise and experience, and if the parties are stronger, there is more accountability. Sadly, it seems the tide is going in the wrong direction, toward a more and more disassociated electorate, with weaker and weaker parties, and ever-increasing power of the plutocrats and interest groups.
This is an important book that I would wish everyone read, though the authors made no effort whatsoever to be readable for the general public. This is so important, I wish they could have made more effort to write a book that would be read by a broader audience than activists and politic professionals.
★★★★
http://tonstantweaderreviews.wordpress.com/2016/12/15/democracy-for-realists-by-christopher-h-achen-larry-m-bartels/
There is no good news here. The authors Christopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels analyze decades of electoral data and research, their own and that of other political scientist researchers. From shark attacks to deficits, Achen and Bartels demonstrate that voters lack the information and skills needed to make informed, rational decisions. Even the most informed and politically engaged voters vote based more on group identity than ideology or issue preferences. In fact, people choose their parties often based on social identity and then adjust their policy preferences to match their party. In contrast to most of the pundits, Achen and Bartels recognize that whiteness is a social identity and identity politics are not limited to people of color and women.
Aches and Bartels believe that most reforms are misguided, adding to the problem rather than improving it. Reducing the power of political parties has reduced the pressure to compromise and made the partisan divide wider. It has also made politicians less responsive to voters.
I can see this happening here in Oregon, the increased use of initiative and referendum has led to fiscal chaos, with voters demanding spending projects at the same time they vote for tax cuts. Referendum has led to a passive legislature who no longer tries to address the failed revenue system because there is no reward for having the political courage to vote for taxes when they will be referred and defeated at the next election. Likewise, many reformers want term limits, stripping politicians of expertise and empowering lobbyists. Reducing the power of parties has led the demagogue Trump whom no responsible party would nominate, the end of compromise and hyper-partisanship.
They argue that reform should recognize the importance of parties. I am sure the clamor to eliminate super delegates is exactly the opposite of the reform necessary. We saw the powerlessness of Republican super delegates to save their party. The removal of ear marks has reduced the power of party discipline to govern efficiently and effectively – damaging our national credit rating.
Democracy For Realists is not happy reading. It takes our glib truisms such as the cure for the problems of democracy is more democracy. I think recognizing that it is impossible for voters to understand every issue, it makes sense to strengthen parties as a proxy because they do cluster ideologically. There is expertise and experience, and if the parties are stronger, there is more accountability. Sadly, it seems the tide is going in the wrong direction, toward a more and more disassociated electorate, with weaker and weaker parties, and ever-increasing power of the plutocrats and interest groups.
This is an important book that I would wish everyone read, though the authors made no effort whatsoever to be readable for the general public. This is so important, I wish they could have made more effort to write a book that would be read by a broader audience than activists and politic professionals.
★★★★
http://tonstantweaderreviews.wordpress.com/2016/12/15/democracy-for-realists-by-christopher-h-achen-larry-m-bartels/
More...