3 ms·

The demographics of voting are not so clear-cut (though income is correlated with votes), and the bigger gap is really between male and female voters.[1] There

• vkou 6y ago
  The voters, for the most part, are treated as useful idiots [1]. The real constituents are the business community, which will make or break your candidacy, who not only vote, but more importantly, fund candidates in alignment their own self-interest. Voting is actually the least effective means of democratic change (It is more effective then sitting at home, and complaining.) The second least effective means of democratic change is getting other people to vote. The most effective means of democratic change is picking the candidates that will be in the running - before voting happens - which can largely be done with dollars. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
  • nickff 6y ago
    Money (generally) doesn't buy elections.[1][2] [1] https://freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/does-money-really-buy-elections-a-new-marketplace-podcast/ https://freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/does-money-really-buy-el... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter
    • mledu 6y ago
      Yes correlation != causation. As vkou noted, it's who gets to pick the candidates that matters, which leaves us to pick between a giant douche or a turd sandwich.
      • JamesBarney 6y ago
        A lot of candidates are chosen via the primary not business elites sitting in back rooms choosing candidates.
    • vkou 6y ago
      Money doesn't decide elections, money picks the candidates that run for elections. There's also the tried-and-true strategy of paying off both candidates, so that regardless who wins, they'll be beholden to you.