The U.S. system displays strong status-quo bias against pro-change public majorities.

Evidence

In this case, as in many others, the status quo survived blow after blow for two related reasons. Despite the militancy of certain groups, the immigration issue was not yet deeply felt throughout the country as a whole. Restriction sentiment, though general, was not generally intense; a substantial part of the American population seemed to regard the question as one of secondary importance. And in the absence of an imperious, nation-wide clamor, strategically situated minorities could prevent either of the major political parties from committing itself resolutely on the issue. — John Higham, Strangers in the Land, 1109 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• recurring: this claim recurs 3 times within its source
• XREF: connects to: U.S. policy outcomes contradict majority preferences whenever elites or organized interests disagree; Broad but shallow public sentiment lets well-placed minorities block national policy change — John Higham, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of…, 1109; Anti-majoritarian U.S. design creates asymmetric status quo bias — Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, Testing Theories of American Politics:…, 106

Related

• Broad but shallow public sentiment lets well-placed minorities block national policy change (similarity 0.91)
• Anti-majoritarian U.S. design creates asymmetric status quo bias (similarity 0.86)
• Large public majorities favoring policy change lose most of the time. (similarity 0.80)
• Majorities of citizens lose when elites and organized interests disagree. (similarity 0.80)
• U.S. policy outcomes contradict majority preferences whenever elites or organized interests disagree (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Broad but shallow public sentiment lets well-placed minorities block national policy change #expands (0.85) — John Higham, Strangers in the Land, 1109