4 ms·
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
by 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 agoYes, 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.