They would all need to have the same schooling, equal amounts of money, similar life experiences, identical academic potential, and comparable skills in working with other people. Even if they tried, the government could not control these things.
It's not just inequality among individuals that needs to be considered, but inequality between individuals and large institutions such as General Electric or Microsoft. You could take the riches away from all of the wealthiest people in the country and that money would not even compare to the fortune that big institutions make in a single year. In order to correctly run a democracy, America would have to have control of institutions ranging from banks to media networks and from schools to large corporations. We just don't have enough resources to maintain that kind of monetary power. .
There is also the problem of political inequality. When looking at the grand scheme of things, it is apparent that each individual's influence is far too small to truly make a difference. The political system can only represent citizens if they belong to an institution whose leaders participate in the political arena. Unfortunately, such institutions have no place in a democracy. "Every political organization becomes a minority of directors and a majority of directed" (Michels, p.70). It is not possible to obtain organization without compromising equal rights. In order to organize, one person or small group will step forward thus creating an elite. Pluralists believe that individual participation is not possible in a society as complex as ours, no matter what it will eventually need to make way for interaction among the elites that present themselves.
In the words of Peter Bachrach, "Pluralism is democratic elitism." As a whole, the concept of pluralism is much closer to elitism than it is to democracy. The government consists of elite groups who manipulate public policy and citizens who belong to interest groups and organizations which try to influence the elitist leaders.
