4 ms·
With the internet the cost is coming down. A candidate could be on youtube giving speeches and on reddit answering questions (or on twitter spouting nonsense),
by unabridged 9y ago
With the internet the cost is coming down. A candidate could be on youtube giving speeches and on reddit answering questions (or on twitter spouting nonsense), reaching millions of people without spending a dime.
The question is more whether the average voter would respect someone only on the internet as much as someone making 1000s of campaign stops and printing millions of littering flyers and signs. I think by 2030 there will be a respectable primary candidate that campaigns 99% from the internet spending almost nothing.
- Chathamization 9y agoGood point. Let's consider an electorate that looks at who is running, goes to their website in order to view their history and positions, and looks at how they have answered questionnaires from various organizations. They then use this information and vote accordingly, ignoring television ads and flyers. For an electorate like this, a candidate needs vary little money. And extra million or two spent on ad buys isn't going to be useful, because people aren't voting based on television ads. The desire to get more money to buy advertisements and flyers is a symptom of a larger issue - an electorate that votes based on ads and flyers, not positions (the situation is of course much more complicated than just this, but it at least highlights a major issue).
- user5994461 9y agoThey are complementary. Going on TV will instantly get you millions of viewers. Going on youtube can also get you millions of viewers. The thing is, there is a lot of viewership on these two that do not overlap. A candidate should be available on all medias, it's not reasonable for anyone to miss millions of people.