Seriously, GOP? Really?

[giblets]

He's not saying it has.

Jon Miller cited growth in campaign spending outpacing population growth as evidence that the increased cost of running a campaign in a larger district combined with population growth is not the reason for increased campaign spending. Felch claimed that there are confounding variables but the population growth thesis is still true. That would seem to imply that he was saying the confounding variables made up the difference.

I think the notion that the cost of campaigns dictates campaign spending is unconvincing. If the main factor in campaign spending is the willingness of people to donate to campaigns, they would have to be taking the inner workings of conducting a campaign into account for this to be true. Campaign spending is probably correlated with income, and the rich are probably willing to donate a larger portion of their income, so increasing income inequality and increasing per capita income could cause the growth in spending to outpace population growth.

[kentonio]

Tactical voting can effect who forms government for the entire nation, and is an attempt to shut out a significant portion of the population from influence in government. You don't see a difference in consequence?

Honestly no not really, because the people voting tactically are not outside of the local process, they are a part of it too. They choose to use their vote to ensure that a rep that shares some of their values ends up representing them, rather than a rep who does not share their values. What benefit is there to that person to end up being represented by someone who is ideologically opposed to them? Should they aid that outcome just to further some vague idea of fairness?

On the other hand someone trying to spoil a primary election is trying to ensure that the representative from the other side is not the one most likely to win favour amongst the other sides voters. They are deliberately trying to sabotage the opposing party, and that doesn't sit comfortably with me at all.

[Aeson]

Jon Miller cited growth in campaign spending outpacing population growth as evidence that the increased cost of running a campaign in a larger district combined with population growth is not the reason for increased campaign spending. Felch claimed that there are confounding variables but the population growth thesis is still true. That would seem to imply that he was saying the confounding variables made up the difference.

You are correct, I misread.

[C0ckney]

I have no problem with it. Initially rightish parties would be shut out of government. The public would be exposed to the reality of greater influence in government from leftish parties. New, better alternatives would develop on the right. The right would return to power and be better equipped to govern well from time to time.

i'm not so sure about rightist parties being shut out of government. i think the current coalition in the UK is forcing many to stop thinking of the lib dems as a 'leftist' party (i'm afraid that i don't know enough about canadian politics to make an intelligent comment about the effect of PR on it). i think it would certainly allow people to express their political preferences more clearly and also help to fight apathy. at the moment, in a lot of areas of the country the devil himself could win a handsome majority, as long as he was wearing a red or blue (delete as appropriate) rosette. as a result many people see voting as pointless, because the know their vote will have no chance of helping someone of their political persuasion to be elected.

in the longer term i think that it would change the parties (which are just big coalitions anyway). we would see the old parties break up and new ones rise (or older, less mainstream parties gain support - think a real socialist party, the greens and UKIP - as people no longer saw a vote for them as pointless and held their noses while voting for another party).

[Fake Boris]

According to a graph I saw this week in a political science manual, proportional suffrage increases participation of informed voters, and decreases participation of uninformed voters.

Just something to think about.

[Felch]

How has technological change made campaigning more expensive? My intuition is that the internet would allow campaigns to reach people with less cost.

The Internet hasn't replaced other media. It's added to the complexity and expense of full spectrum campaigning. You're absolutely right that it makes it possible for a less funded campaign to reach people at a lower cost than traditional media, but there's still a generation gap. To reach older voters you still need traditional mass media.

[Hauldren Collider]

And older people actually vote.

[OzzyKP]

Jon Miller cited growth in campaign spending outpacing population growth as evidence that the increased cost of running a campaign in a larger district combined with population growth is not the reason for increased campaign spending. Felch claimed that there are confounding variables but the population growth thesis is still true. That would seem to imply that he was saying the confounding variables made up the difference.

I think the notion that the cost of campaigns dictates campaign spending is unconvincing. If the main factor in campaign spending is the willingness of people to donate to campaigns, they would have to be taking the inner workings of conducting a campaign into account for this to be true. Campaign spending is probably correlated with income, and the rich are probably willing to donate a larger portion of their income, so increasing income inequality and increasing per capita income could cause the growth in spending to outpace population growth.

There are times in our history where income inequality was greater then today. Do you believe people spent proportionately more on campaigns from 1870-1930? Also, do you believe the fact that larger states (or districts) see more money spent in them is because those districts have greater income inequality then others?

[giblets]

There are times in our history where income inequality was greater then today. Do you believe people spent proportionately more on campaigns from 1870-1930? Also, do you believe the fact that larger states (or districts) see more money spent in them is because those districts have greater income inequality then others?

1. Larger states have a much larger pool of donors for a statewide campaign. Or are you claiming that the larger states tend to have more campaign spending per capita?
2. How do you know what the distribution of income was in the 19th century? Or even what the campaign spending statistics were?

[MrFun]

[The Mad Monk]

...because we are all Santorum.

[bluray movies]

I am really can not believe Santorum--RICK ****ING "MAN-ON-DOG" SANTORUM--actually wins Iowa.

[The Mad Monk]

I am really can not believe Santorum--RICK ****ING "MAN-ON-DOG" SANTORUM--actually wins Iowa.

You're pretty sharp for a spambot.

[Dinner]

I am really can not believe Santorum--RICK ****ING "MAN-ON-DOG" SANTORUM--actually wins Iowa.

He also won TN, OK, and ND.

[MrFun]

...because we are all Santorum.

Given the strength that Insantorum has among Republican voters, you may as well all be him.