4 ms·

Wouldn't it be the opposite? Theoretically doesn't the party in power usually have access to more resources (whether directly or indirectly through connections

Wouldn't it be the opposite? Theoretically doesn't the party in power usually have access to more resources (whether directly or indirectly through connections etc) than the opposing party? And therefore would imply that the party in power would be able to out-perform in both quantity and quality in ads generally speaking than opposing parties? I'm just trying to understand how it actually helps the party in power by not allowing ads to run. Because I see the opposite situation. Honestly it seems to me both situations the sitting party has the most power, but simply due to the fact that they're the party in power.

datashow 7y ago
The reason is simple. The establishment has nothing to gain but everything to lose. Let's say the maximum reach/exposure to voters is 100% in their country. The political establishment of many decades already have this number close to 100%, but the opposition may only have 5%. You see, the opposition has potential to gain a lot from ads, but not the establishment. Also in a rich society like Singapore, grassroots can make huge contribution to the opposition party if their voice get heard and spread. But the establishment does not need this.
- TheFiend7 7y ago
  So if the opposition only has 5% support, while the establishment has close to 95% support (for the sake of the example). I'd argue the opposing party 5% support would likely have a matching resource pool of their size. Meaning the establishment might run 95% of all ads as ads supporting the establishment and only 5% of ads would support the opposing party. So I struggle to see how that would help the opposing party? Obviously, it isn't that cut and dry, but America is a good example actually. Because they have 2 major parties and several third parties. But those third parties never make any meaningful growth even after running ads because they only represent >5% of the available political parties.
  - datashow 7y ago
    By running ads, the opposition can gain more support, but the establishment can't. How is this hard to understand?
    - TheFiend7 7y ago
      Yeah I'm saying that doesn't make any sense and is untrue. So agree to disagree then.

datashow 7y ago

The reason is simple. The establishment has nothing to gain but everything to lose. Let's say the maximum reach/exposure to voters is 100% in their country. The political establishment of many decades already have this number close to 100%, but the opposition may only have 5%. You see, the opposition has potential to gain a lot from ads, but not the establishment. Also in a rich society like Singapore, grassroots can make huge contribution to the opposition party if their voice get heard and spread. But the establishment does not need this.

TheFiend7 7y ago
So if the opposition only has 5% support, while the establishment has close to 95% support (for the sake of the example). I'd argue the opposing party 5% support would likely have a matching resource pool of their size. Meaning the establishment might run 95% of all ads as ads supporting the establishment and only 5% of ads would support the opposing party. So I struggle to see how that would help the opposing party? Obviously, it isn't that cut and dry, but America is a good example actually. Because they have 2 major parties and several third parties. But those third parties never make any meaningful growth even after running ads because they only represent >5% of the available political parties.
- datashow 7y ago
  By running ads, the opposition can gain more support, but the establishment can't. How is this hard to understand?
  - TheFiend7 7y ago
    Yeah I'm saying that doesn't make any sense and is untrue. So agree to disagree then.