Scan barcode
A review by haoyang
Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government by Larry M. Bartels, Christopher H. Achen
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.