In the book, Unequal Democracy author Larry M. Bartels argues that the mass public in the United States is apathetic about economic inequality. Low-income citizens are more concerned about the rich running the country, which threatens egalitarian values. The wealthy are not paying their fair share of taxes, they receive better treatment in court, and the law favors them the majority of the time. To make things worse they also receive better political representation when it comes to dealing with social issues. These political benefits are given because the wealthy contribute heavily to political campaigns. It is given that the wealthy are better informed about politics than the poor, which makes them politically active. The poor on the other …show more content…
In the early 1990’s the case of abortion was an important social issue that had divided opinions from the high income, middle income, and poor income constituents. In this case, senators examined four key roll call votes that were important in determining the future of abortion policy. The four votes included: parental notification, counseling ban, public funding, and clinical access, which were all connected to the abortion policy. Bartel explains how low-income constituents favored a pro-life opinion and high income favored a pro-choice opinion, which was based on positive and negative values on data from Senate Legislative Information System. In this data, we can see that the gap between high and low-income responsiveness is significant. The high income has a 2 point responsive advantage across the board in regards to roll call votes. Even though abortion is seen as a problem in low-income communities, the opinion that is considered most of the time is that of the wealthy. The results of this statistic are a mere reflection of the unequal representation by senators. The poor are not having the opportunity to dictate their lives when it comes to abortion. Even if abortion has little to do with economic inequality, the economic difference in opinion creates the inequality of political …show more content…
The low-income communities have limited knowledge about politics because they are limited to resources like education. They are not being informed properly because they are gaining limited political knowledge through the media and friends. To make things even more complicated, they are not politically active. This political absence is contributing to a political opinion that does not motivate a senator to make a difference in the legislature. According to Bartels voter turnout and political contact with public officials is scarce for the minority. This can be seen through the Senate Election study that calculates the mean and standard deviation of political turnout, knowledge, and contact. According to this study, low-income constituents have a low level mean in voter turnout, political knowledge, and political contact, while high-income constituents have higher levels across the board. This clearly defines the gap that senators use in order to favor their affluent constituents. It is the opinion of the constituents that determines the behavioral aspect of a senator. However, public opinion is only influential if it relates to the opinion of the elite class. Bartel argues that having elite opinion persuades policymakers to consider the interests of organized interest groups. These groups advocate for the benefits of the