Democracy for Realists assails the romantic folk-theory at the heart of contemporary thinking about democratic politics and government, and offers a provocative alternative view grounded in the actual human nature of democratic citizens.

Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels deploy a wealth of social-scientific evidence, including ingenious original analyses of topics ranging from abortion politics and budget deficits to the Great Depression and shark attacks, to show that the familiar ideal of thoughtful citizens steering the ship of state from the voting booth is fundamentally misguided. They demonstrate that voters--even those who are well informed and politically engaged--mostly choose parties and candidates on the basis of social identities and partisan loyalties, not political issues. They also show that voters adjust their policy views and even their perceptions of basic matters of fact to match those loyalties. When parties are roughly evenly matched, elections often turn on irrelevant or misleading considerations such as economic spurts or downturns beyond the incumbents' control; the outcomes are essentially random. Thus, voters do not control the course of public policy, even indirectly.

Achen and Bartels argue that democratic theory needs to be founded on identity groups and political parties, not on the preferences of individual voters. Now with new analysis of the 2016 elections, Democracy for Realists provides a powerful challenge to conventional thinking, pointing the way toward a fundamentally different understanding of the realities and potential of democratic government.

A lot of interesting ideas and information - presented in a stilted boring tedious academic style of writing. Too bad. I got about a hundred pages in before I finally gave up. Not too technical or hard to understand. Just painful to read. Sorry to say that, I’ve never written a book myself, and if I did I’m sure it would be far worse...

Many current conceptions of democracy are based on the idea that "Ordinary people have preferences about what their governments should do. They choose leaders who will do those things, or they enact their preferences directly in referendums"(p.1). This book provides a dispassionate, social-scientific critique of that idea. The authors show on several fronts (utilizing primarily US election statistics) that this democratic ideal is far too demanding to have any basis in reality. Whether the mechanism is democratic representation, direct democracy or retrospective accountability, the ability of voters to rationally control governmental decision-making is almost nonexistent.

The book gets off to a good start from that vantage point, but some of the chapters in the middle are a bit superfluous. In chapter 6 on "economic voting", the authors compare election results against macroeconomic data. It seems to me that this comparison rests on the specious assumption that the state of the economy was the only thing voters could have been concerned with when they voted. Chapter 7 then analyses depression-era economic and election statistics at a level of detail which only political science specialists could find interesting.

Thankfully, the book again becomes more interesting towards the end. The authors argue that the true psychological basis of voting behaviour does not lie in individual preferences, but in group identity. In deciding whom to vote for, people first identify themselves with a group, and then vote according to this group allegiance. Political parties are at the center of group identification. Instead of responding to the preferences of the people, they set the parameters for those preferences.

The authors do not (yet) present a realistic theory of democracy which would avoid the errors of earlier theories. Nevertheless, the last chapter of the book has many interesting conclusions which are bound to stimulate a lot of useful discussion.

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-... ( )

The first four chapters of the book rate five stars, but for a general reader, the book overall only scores a three. First, let's look at those first four chapters. They examine -- and contradict -- the assumption that American elections reveal voter preferences on the issues, leading to a government that is in some sense representative of the wishes of the electorate. Rather, the authors show, voters pretty much react to economic conditions just prior to the election, and, to a lesser degree, whether or not a party has been in power for two or more terms. The statistical evidence is compelling. The outcome is disheartening, but won't really surprise those who have spent a lot of time thinking about American politics. The rest of the book isn't nearly as interesting, essentially rehashing the earlier evidence in different combinations. For a lay reader, this book is a tough read, and a boring one. That's too bad, given the importance of its central conclusion. ( )