PT57.S3.Q22 - democratic elections not fully subsidized

CJ Shin

Hey guys,

I revisited one of my old PTs and got stuck at this question because I am not really understanding what the stimulus is saying. It's about politics and yes, I have ZERO interest in politics so it is extra hard for me to see what the author is saying.

BTW, the link:
http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-57-section-3-question-22/

Ok, so I do understand up to the point where the author's argument begins.
Poor candidates need money from rich dudes to win elections and therefore likely to compromise their views (to align their views with their patrons).
But this sentence is giving me a hard time: "But since the wealthy are dispersed among the various political parties in roughly equal proportion to their percentage in the overall population."

In roughly equal proportion to their percentage in the overall population? What? Does 'overall population' mean literally the population of a country? Or does it mean population of the party?
And what does this have anything to with whether or not the candidate will or not compromise?

POE got me to B because the others are very irrelevant but I really want to understand the logic behind it.

EuripidesFan

Think about it like this: Lets say the population is 50% Republican and 50% Democrat, then according to the argument, 50% of the wealthy are Republicans and the other 50% of the wealthy are Democrats ("their percentage in the overall population" refers to the various political parties' representation in the overall population. So the wealthy are members of such parties in proportion to each party's popularity among the overall population). The argument's claim (remember to always return to the core of the argument) is that it is false, due to this consistency in distribution, that candidates' views would be compromised. This is presumably on account of the fact that, while the candidates may be beholden to rich people, those rich people are distributed in proportion to the political party's representation among the overall population.

The argument illicitly assumes however, that this proportional distribution is a good enough reason to trust that the candidates' positions won't be compromised. But (as J.Y might say) Who Cares! that the political parties are proportionately represented among the wealthy? Couldn't the candidates' dependence on the wealthy compromise their position regardless of whether those wealthy people stick to the party line? (think Koch bros and George Soros vs. all the rest of us who don't give a shit and would rather watch the Daily Show instead of Fox or MSNBC)

Answer B directly addresses this vulnerability by stating that political parties' positions might be less varied than the positions taken by the candidates. That is a real possibility, and thus regardless of a consistency in distribution among the wealthy to the various political parties, that really doesn't do us any good, since the political parties themselves may take positions that are more limited those held by the candidates. Answer B severs the link between political parties and candidates that the stimulus attempts to blur. And that is why Answer B is correct, in my opinion.

EuripidesFan

more limited than* those held by the candidates. Meaning, even in the best case scenario that the wealthy only influence the candidates in proportion to the amount of representation the party they back has in the overall population, that line of reasoning fails to take into the possibility that the parties have more limited views and would thereby limit / compromise the views of the candidates through the wealthy donors.