4 ms·

> An equal amount of money is spent on lost elections too. That's false. There's a pretty strong correlation between outspending and winning elections. The los

• unityByFreedom 9y ago
  > There's a pretty strong correlation between outspending and winning elections. The losing side usually spent less. In aggregate, much more money is spent winning elections than losing them. A lot of money is wasted on lost elections. I did say "equal", but my point was a lot of advertising dollars fail. Barney Frank: "If the voters have a position, the votes will kick money's rear end any time. I've never met a politician-- I've been in the legislative bodies for 40 years now-- who, choosing between a significant opinion in his or her district and a number of campaign contributors, doesn't go with the district." http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/transcript http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/t...
  • bendoernberg 9y ago
    How does this explain the Republican party's continued support for healthcare bills with sub-25% approval ratings? Also I don't see Barney Frank, Signature Bank board member and author of a piece titled "Yes, I Took Bank Money. And It Made Me a Better Regulator" as a disinterested commentator.
    • alexanderstears 9y ago
      Among the Republicans I know, all Obamacare-lite bills are more popular than Obamacare. And there's probably a belief that people will like the bills after it passes. Just as a lot of 'conservatives' eventually came out in favor of Obamacare (like McCain), I'm sure a lot of people would admit that they like Obamacare-lite more than Obamacare. Self-interested politicians might think that the bills would be more popular once some people saw their health care burdens drop. And I don't think they're wrong, the healthy people who make Obamacare possible stand to gain the most under the Republican healthcare proposals - the young, the wealthy, the healthy. Half the country votes and half the country votes GOP, a 25% approval rating can translate to near-universal approval in a political faction.
• TeMPOraL 9y ago
  I think the problem is that elections are this ridiculous zero-sum game that is able to consume ever increasing amount of resources, where almost entire contribution of one party goes to cancel out the contribution of another party.
  • unityByFreedom 9y ago
    I don't actually feel it is zero sum. There is a lot of learning that happens through debate at all levels. One might argue it is the foundation of our society.
    • TeMPOraL 9y ago
      I wasn't thinking about the debates. I was thinking about all the money spent on campaign advertisements - on posters, phone calls, radio ads, TV ads, Internet ads, and so on, and so on. All that does is cancel out similar efforts from other candidates.
      • unityByFreedom 9y ago
        All that stuff leads the rest of us to debate too. The system depends upon having informed voters. As silly as that may sound today, I do feel that puts us in a better position to make progress than the other forms of government that exist.
• a-priori 9y ago
  The amount of money spent on American elections is incredible. In the 2012 US Presidential election (seems the data is not yet available for 2016), an estimated $7B was spent in total by all candidates and private groups. This is about $21.54 per person. For comparison, in the last Canadian federal election, the top 5 parties combined received $127M in funding (public + private contributions). This amounts to about $3.60 per person, about one sixth as much on a per capita basis.