Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
The point here is that democratic nations can have imposed reasonable limits on who is and who isn’t a legitimate candidate. Arnold Schwarzenegger wasn’t a legitimate candidate, because he wasn’t born in the US.
The Constitution lists only three qualifications for the Presidency — the President must be at least 35 years of age, be a natural born citizen, and must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years.
Other countries have different requirements. Usually there’s a bit more, but still vague, like “be of good standing” or something like that.
You’re implying the Cambridge study doesn’t actually mean what it means, because “the US is a republic”, not realising a republic is a type of democracy. The Cambridge study concludes:
The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
Is that too hard to understand? I can try to simplify it if you like.
Also, you said “I never referred to a pure democracy”, when you said that verbatim.
Thirdly, what the fuck is this about “stalking”? You replied to me replying to some other dude?
So you think a traitorous person can be a legitimate candidate?
Removed by mod
Valid sentence, yes.
I’d still like an answer though.
Removed by mod
Unfortunately, the US is not a pure democracy. It’s not even a democracy, arguably.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
The point here is that democratic nations can have imposed reasonable limits on who is and who isn’t a legitimate candidate. Arnold Schwarzenegger wasn’t a legitimate candidate, because he wasn’t born in the US.
Other countries have different requirements. Usually there’s a bit more, but still vague, like “be of good standing” or something like that.
Removed by mod
You said
Just one comment above this.
Here:
And we clearly were discussing the US. And whether a treasonous person would be a legitimate choice for president.
I’ve no idea what the rest of your comment means. How could I be stalking you if you replied to my comment? And why would I be stalking some random?
Edit also a “democratic Republic” is a democracy, and that study specifically says there’s no evidence of democracy, but a ton for oligarchy
Removed by mod
Are you high or something?
You’re implying the Cambridge study doesn’t actually mean what it means, because “the US is a republic”, not realising a republic is a type of democracy. The Cambridge study concludes:
Is that too hard to understand? I can try to simplify it if you like.
Also, you said “I never referred to a pure democracy”, when you said that verbatim.
Thirdly, what the fuck is this about “stalking”? You replied to me replying to some other dude?
The answer is yes, if the peoples want to destroy democracy