The worst indoctrination is neither liberal nor conservative, but statist. And since public schools do such a poor job at education, statist indoctrination seems to be the main purpose of the things.

B-b-but Obama is a man of the people! He looks out for the little guy!

I'm curious... did anyone read the actual study?  It's a rare case where an article links directly to part of it and you don't have to go digging... and it's very problematic.

1)  The problems with their model outside that.

Quote from the paper.

Some particular U.S. membership organizations – especially the AARP and labor unions 

– do tend to favor the same policies as average citizens. But other membership groups take 

stands that are unrelated (pro-life and pro-choice groups) or negatively related (gun owners) to 

what the average American wants.40

Problem here... almost none of those are actual true when you look at what the majority of americans want really.  (Really only the Union one, and even that can be off)

The most noticeable one is the "Gun Owners" one.     Generally the average person supports gun owners, and by quite a large margin.  It's why it's a fight the democrats never actually make unless there is a tragic shooting, then they try and rush it through... because public opinion will change for a month or two then fall back to defaults.

What happens during that period though?  Suddenly there are 70 studies by different outlets asking the question, so there are 30 surveys in 1 month about gun control, vs 1 every year otherwise.

So essentially, they aren't judging mass opinion, more like temporary mass hyesteria to big issues.  What the american public thinks about something when it's in the news vs what they think of it when it's in the news.

Except... They use the 50th percentile income as a representative for "Mass opinion".   So if your Median income people believe in something, this is treating as  "Mass Opinion."    

They use the 90th percentile income group as representative for "The oligarchy class".    That's not rich enough to be in that class... as they even admit.  They're arguement is that such a group is more likely to agree with the rich then the 50th percentile, therefore it's close enough, because it'd be too much work otherwise.

Second problem with this, Money is often a bell curve when it comes to public opinion on things

2) What a democracy is.

.

Third problem with this?  Basically they arent' adjusting for education or knowledge.  The reason we have a representative democracy is because not everybody knows EVERYTHING, and you want polticians who aren't going to nessisairly drive the country off a cliff simply because the majority of the US wants to start a trade war with the Chinese.   This is espeically true when you consider the above... and that it's really just juding the average median dudes Knee jerk reaction to political stuff that's a big story and freaking them out at the moment.

3) The actual numbers.

 Neither group actually reached over 50%.  Basically, what this shows isn't so much that the US is an oligachy run by rich special interests, so much as that the US government is an intransient mess that can't really accomplish anything.

I wonder what they are teaching in school now a days. The US was never a democracy, it was never intended to be a democracy. The US was set up as a Republic, hence the name "The Republic of the United States of America", based off of the the Roman form of government. (Democracy is from the Greek city states period) A republic isn't a democracy, the founders of the nation did everything in their power to make sure that the common citizen couldn't directly affect political discussion, because they knew it would become a popularity contest since most people don't know the qualities needed to make a good leader. (The last three presidential choices prove them correct.)

Originally the president wasn't voted in by the public but select members of each political party. The system is kind of still used today, but the system today is something that was never intended. The voting process is nothing more than a sham to make people think their vote counts. What they are voting for is who is going to vote. (Each party chooses anonymous representatives in each state and depending on the state laws some or all of the party's representatives will vote. The kicker is they don't have to vote for their party's candidate. Which is one of the reason why an independent or smaller party (Communist, Green, etc) will never be voted in.

Though the way it is left it susceptible to being controlled by the elite rich, which wasn't as big of a deal back then because usually the rich were the only ones who had an education past 6th/8th grade. So in reality the voting system, and the government itself needs to be overhauled from the top down.

Maybe, but a reassertion of states rights would be a major step towards decentralization and accountability, though admittedly not much of an improvement if you live in a place like New York or California.

Both (modern) liberals and (modern) conservatives are statists, so it was implied. Although by statist, do you mean those "truths" which both groups accept? Then yes, I agree, beause there is no dissenting voice to dismantle that propaganda. 

The origin of public schools was indoctrination, of course. That is why most states hold a jealous monopoly on education, and why in the countries public school originated in (Prussia ->>> Modern Germany) all other forms of education are banned or heavily regulated (even moreso than the U.S.) 

Upon becoming the secretary of education in Massachusetts in 1837, Horace Mann (1796–1859) worked to create a statewide system of professional teachers, based on the Prussian model of "common schools," which referred to the belief that everyone was entitled to the same content in education. Mann's early efforts focused primarily on elementary education and on preparing teachers. The common-school movement quickly gained strength across the North. Connecticut adopted a similar system in 1849, and Massachusetts passed a compulsory attendance law in 1852.

Arguing that universal public education was the best way to turn the nation's unruly children into disciplined, judicious republican citizens, Mann won widespread approval from modernizers, especially among fellow Whigs, for building public schools. Indeed, most states adopted one version or another of the system he established in Massachusetts, especially the program for "normal schools" to train professional teachers.

The underlined sentence says it all. It was meant to refine students into statists. 

Not so sure how it helps with accountability. Decrentralisation will only be beneficial if the States were going in a different direction to the Feds... but all levels are pretty much controlled by the Republicans/Democrats.

Dont scientists have better things to do , like finding the missing link

First of all, the US was NEVER a democracy in the literal sense of the word, it's a Republic.

Second of all, name one nation on the face of this Earth where the wealthy and politically connected DON'T have more power and influence than the average citizen. The difference is that in many nations around the globe the average citizen has very little, if any, rights.

This article does nothing except push the latest talking points from the political left-wing that the rich are evil and control everything, yet the hypocrisy here is that they have no problem when the wealthy throw money and support behind left-wing causes... see Michael Bloomberg's $50 million self-funded push for gun control, for example. You don't see the "anti-1%" left-wing in this country refusing his money, do you?

Republic (res publica - "public affair")  just means that the government is a public (not a private, i.e monarchy) responsibility. This means the people are recognized as the ultimate sovereigns, not a king or parliament or congress. The representative vs. pure democratic system is a separate matter entirely. 

I agree with much of what you say, except this: 

"because they knew it would become a popularity contest since most people don't know the qualities needed to make a good leader."

If we are to assume that they were republicans, then they precisely believed the opposite. That is the principle basis for why they chose the representative system. However, they also understood that mob rule was unstable and led to an abridgement of the rights of individuals (the founders weren't only republicans but also (classical) liberals), and that is why they chose a representative and not a direct democracy (among other more functional reasons, such as efficiency.) 

Now not all republics must be democracies. Some are oligarchies (the modern U.S is a good example.)  Some countries with democratic systems are also not republics, at least in name (UK, Spain, Japan for example.) Today this isn't very true, but historically soveriegnty was shared between the monarch and the public, or entirely in the hands of the monarch. 

In the United States conservatives have been using the term republic to mean "liberal democracy." Which means a system in which all people have representation in the legislature of their government, but are limited by liberal rights theory (the mob cannot decide illiberal legislation.) 

To summarize, in the United States:

Constitutional Republic = Liberal Democracy = A system of government in which the democratic elections (either representative or direct) are limited in the case in which they are illiberal. This is cemented by either a constitution or a charter (i.e Bill of Rights, Magna Carta.) 

Representative Democracy = What you described, when the representatives do not have to vote according to the wishes of the electors. 

Oligarchy = Rule of a small subset of the population. 

Republic (outside the U.S and among academics) = Public government.