Hacker News Reader

Comment by jasonkolb | Hacker News Reader

It would be interesting if the market ends uP developing into a series of PACs around targeted issues. I would definitely donate to a PAC whose sole reason for existence is to punish lawmakers who try pass these anti-Internet laws like SOPA. I would also donate to an anti-corruption PAC.

I actually like the idea of being able to donate to targeted causes a la carte.

View on HN

This sounds like a good idea until you think about where that money goes. The reason PACs need money is for media buys. I would be much more comfortable with a 10k ad buy to oppose Lamar Smith if the mechanism for turning that money into influence wasn't owned by a handful of companies, all of which give much greater sums to represent the opposing side.

In the end, the problem isn't the PACs as much as it is the fact that the process takes place on private property. It's like two armies showing up for a battle and each having to pay a fee at the door to somebody who was then allowed to spend that take on weapons for the side of their choosing.

Really. Why not use some of that money to buy target ads on facebook? Google ads for whatever your opponent say is important?

Somebody googles 'health care reform romney' -- wouldn't it be a much better use of money to put up an attack ad on Romneys position here than to buy a millionth of a tv add? You can directly target the voters who are worth fighting about (those who haven't decided or who are still on the fence, rather than the rednecks who would never vote for a black guy) and you can measure your performance in those ads.

Remember you don't need to convince everybody, you just need one more vote than the other guy -- and so long as you do that, it doesn't matter if you got that vote by a completely dedicated fan or somebody who was offered a lollipop to vote.

I don't believe most voters use a rational process to pick who they vote for. It seems to me that selling a politician is no different to selling washing powder and that's probably best done through TV. Most voters simply feel compelled to vote and go for the overall feel or 'brand' of the politician.

That's what I feel after observing UK politics recently, especially after the referendum for changing our voting system.

Most voters simply feel compelled to vote and go for the overall feel or 'brand' of the politician.

I agree. Something the Obama campaign understood and mastered. I don't want to make this an overly political discussion, he's made some moves and gestures I disagreed with, has some policies I didn't like but he knew how to run an election and change the conversation. Branding is what did it for him.

Yes. Isn't there research showing that trying to persuade people to change their position just strengthens their opinion?

Of course, but you will never get those people to change their vote. So who gives a shit what they care about?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com