4 ms·

What does "surprisingly little" mean to you? US election spending in 2024 was almost $2bn (mostly presidential election). If media presence had surprisingly li

What does "surprisingly little" mean to you? US election spending in 2024 was almost $2bn (mostly presidential election). If media presence had surprisingly little effect on outcomes, then I would expect candidates to spend surprisingly little or be constantly outperformed by "underfunded" candidates-- neither of which is the case.

notahacker 1y ago
The old "half of my advertising budget is wasted, but I have no idea which half" quote springs to mind... Not sure how you're defining "underfunded" candidates, but the incumbents in competitive races where enormous amounts are spent by both sides to try to gain an advantage don't win anywhere near as often as the incumbent in nom-competitive races which parties and PACs barely bother spending in. Ultimately the spending is positional and cancels out, and the biggest spender often loses because there's not nearly enough difference between the candidates' spending levels to affect whether voters hear their messages.
guywithahat 1y ago
It's a game theory problem. There are lots of studies around executive performance, and what people find is that the specific executive/CEO has basically no impact, while things like general industry growth and direction is what matters (suggesting executive/CEO decisions are just a game of chance). But obviously I could also choose a bad executive who would tank the company. What's really happening is when everyone is trying their hardest, all of the executives are as good as they can be, and the things they do tend to look more like luck than performance. It's the same thing in elections. Because everyone is competitive, who donates what money or it's amount tends to not really matter. If a candidate were to sabotage their campaign they would lose, but in a competitive election it doesn't end up being statistically significant.
keiferski 1y ago
This seems like a big number, but frankly in context it's actually quite trivial. We're talking about the lead office in the world's most dominant country, and the amount spent on the election is roughly equivalent to...the amount spent on ice cream or manga/comic books, per year. There is a lot of money in America, and comparatively not that much is actually spent on the election. Maybe it's still too much in an ostensibly democratic system, but it's worth noting.
- myrmidon 1y ago
  > This seems like a big number, but frankly in context it's actually quite trivial. It's not really helpful that the number is tolerable in terms of national GDP: election spending being so large in terms of median wealth simply excludes lots of capable potential candidates that are not well positioned to raise money (for whatever reason). It also leads to completely outsized pandering to "rich donor" interests, because those finance the largest share of the campaigns, which is an obvious problem if you want to call yourself "democracy" (instead of oligarchy or plutocracy).
  - keiferski 1y ago
    Yes, I didn’t say it was a good thing, I said it’s actually surprising that comparatively little money is spent on influencing the election. More money is spent on buying ice cream in a single year than on a once-every-four-years election.

notahacker 1y ago

The old "half of my advertising budget is wasted, but I have no idea which half" quote springs to mind... Not sure how you're defining "underfunded" candidates, but the incumbents in competitive races where enormous amounts are spent by both sides to try to gain an advantage don't win anywhere near as often as the incumbent in nom-competitive races which parties and PACs barely bother spending in. Ultimately the spending is positional and cancels out, and the biggest spender often loses because there's not nearly enough difference between the candidates' spending levels to affect whether voters hear their messages.

guywithahat 1y ago

It's a game theory problem. There are lots of studies around executive performance, and what people find is that the specific executive/CEO has basically no impact, while things like general industry growth and direction is what matters (suggesting executive/CEO decisions are just a game of chance). But obviously I could also choose a bad executive who would tank the company. What's really happening is when everyone is trying their hardest, all of the executives are as good as they can be, and the things they do tend to look more like luck than performance. It's the same thing in elections. Because everyone is competitive, who donates what money or it's amount tends to not really matter. If a candidate were to sabotage their campaign they would lose, but in a competitive election it doesn't end up being statistically significant.

keiferski 1y ago

This seems like a big number, but frankly in context it's actually quite trivial. We're talking about the lead office in the world's most dominant country, and the amount spent on the election is roughly equivalent to...the amount spent on ice cream or manga/comic books, per year. There is a lot of money in America, and comparatively not that much is actually spent on the election. Maybe it's still too much in an ostensibly democratic system, but it's worth noting.

myrmidon 1y ago
> This seems like a big number, but frankly in context it's actually quite trivial. It's not really helpful that the number is tolerable in terms of national GDP: election spending being so large in terms of median wealth simply excludes lots of capable potential candidates that are not well positioned to raise money (for whatever reason). It also leads to completely outsized pandering to "rich donor" interests, because those finance the largest share of the campaigns, which is an obvious problem if you want to call yourself "democracy" (instead of oligarchy or plutocracy).
- keiferski 1y ago
  Yes, I didn’t say it was a good thing, I said it’s actually surprising that comparatively little money is spent on influencing the election. More money is spent on buying ice cream in a single year than on a once-every-four-years election.