3 ms·

But the cost of campaigns downs basically linearly with number of voters too. (TV ads are proportional to eyeballs.) There are some non-linear effects here, b

But the cost of campaigns downs basically linearly with number of voters too. (TV ads are proportional to eyeballs.) There are some non-linear effects here, but I'm not sure how they operate.

monocasa 8y ago
> But the cost of campaigns downs basically linearly with number of voters too. What makes you say that? Hell at 10,000 constituents you borderline don't even need to run ads, just go door to door, personally.
- bryondowd 8y ago
  Exactly. Seems to me it would be more plausible for a candidate without deep pockets backing them to be able to run a competitive campaign on issues the district cares about. Simply because they could just go around knocking on doors. A candidate and nine helpers each talking to 100 people a week for ten weeks could theoretically cover the entire district. Not to mention being able reach a good chunk of them by just hanging out at a local grocery store or visiting local bars and other hotspots. Throwing money at a hotspot race would have rapidly diminishing returns compared to a race with several hundred thousand people who can only be reached in numbers by broadcast ads or a truly massive campaign force. EDIT: Although I suppose the tactic could at that point be turned to buying voters more directly. Spend a ton of money on something that benefits everyone in the district and make it clear that it'll keep coming only if they vote for your candidate, and you might have the same effect.
jethro_tell 8y ago
I believe their point is that you'd have to buy 350 reps to get the same 1% coverage you can get today with 4. You could probably get the same result by blocking funding external to the district and killing citizens united. And/or shorten campaigns to 60 days so they just don't cost as much. And/or, provide public funding and election spending caps. I don't think that trying to scale out of it would be that effective but I see what they are getting at. My guess, is that would raise the inequality of the playing field again as the richest would be able to spin up an organization to manage 10k reps, decide whose relevant who to fund, and so on, people who didn't have lobbyists before won't be able to afford that even if the per rep cost gets cheaper, the total influence cost will rise and price additional people out of the market.

But the cost of campaigns downs basically linearly with number of voters too. (TV ads are proportional to eyeballs.) There are some non-linear effects here, but I'm not sure how they operate.

monocasa 8y ago

> But the cost of campaigns downs basically linearly with number of voters too. What makes you say that? Hell at 10,000 constituents you borderline don't even need to run ads, just go door to door, personally.

bryondowd 8y ago
Exactly. Seems to me it would be more plausible for a candidate without deep pockets backing them to be able to run a competitive campaign on issues the district cares about. Simply because they could just go around knocking on doors. A candidate and nine helpers each talking to 100 people a week for ten weeks could theoretically cover the entire district. Not to mention being able reach a good chunk of them by just hanging out at a local grocery store or visiting local bars and other hotspots. Throwing money at a hotspot race would have rapidly diminishing returns compared to a race with several hundred thousand people who can only be reached in numbers by broadcast ads or a truly massive campaign force. EDIT: Although I suppose the tactic could at that point be turned to buying voters more directly. Spend a ton of money on something that benefits everyone in the district and make it clear that it'll keep coming only if they vote for your candidate, and you might have the same effect.

jethro_tell 8y ago

I believe their point is that you'd have to buy 350 reps to get the same 1% coverage you can get today with 4. You could probably get the same result by blocking funding external to the district and killing citizens united. And/or shorten campaigns to 60 days so they just don't cost as much. And/or, provide public funding and election spending caps. I don't think that trying to scale out of it would be that effective but I see what they are getting at. My guess, is that would raise the inequality of the playing field again as the richest would be able to spin up an organization to manage 10k reps, decide whose relevant who to fund, and so on, people who didn't have lobbyists before won't be able to afford that even if the per rep cost gets cheaper, the total influence cost will rise and price additional people out of the market.