Hacker News Reader

Comment by Aurornis | Hacker News Reader

> In order to win elections, you almost need those investors on your side more than the actual public

…because those few elite investors outnumber the voting public at the voting booth?

This claim doesn’t make any sense. It’s weird conspiratorial thinking.

EDIT: Yes, people. I’m familiar with Fox News and the concept of campaign donations. However, Fox News’ prime time viewership is around 0.5% of the US population and the average size of presidential campaign contributions is well under $100.

Claiming that elections are decided by a shadowy cabal of elite investors who trick unwitting voters into voting against their self interests is the election equivalent of claiming anyone who disagrees with you online is a bot or a shill.

View on HN

One way the super wealthy can over whelm the intent of voters is through emphasis of information. It doesn't matter if candidate A supports 2 or 3 things most people like, if they also support or symbolize something they hate. By emphasizing a less important true thing through disproportionate marketing budgets, you can decrease the chances of people voting in favor of their own interests.

I'm sure most homeowners (especially those owning multiple properties but not even remotely close to being "super wealthy") would gladly vote against their interest as long as lobbyists stopped trying to influence public opinion...

It's actually well established in the research. In the below article, it summarizes the issue by saying:

"Basically, average citizens only get what they want if economic elites or interests groups also want it."

https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-...

You need immense financial resources to win elections in the US. To get those, you need the support of elite investors.

This is why other countries legally cap election campaign spending.

This is why iowa has the first caucus. As a small state you need much less money to reach everyone and a win will get you attention and money to target other states.

as an Iowan I hate it as so many caucus only for the strawpoll.

The problem is that getting to run for president requires a constant stream of money throughout your entire political career (or you need to have your own funds to contribute). This acts as a filter for any candidates that take anti-investor stances.

Because most "normal" homeowners or those who own a couple of properties would be extremely happy to vote for policies which would potentially reduce their equity...

Political campaigns today are decided by advertising budgets. It isn’t conspiratorial to think that the people funding these media campaigns would want something in return.

Advertising helps but it's not decisive. In the 2016 Presidential campaign, Clinton spent far more than Trump on advertising but she still lost. Savvy politicians have figured out how to leverage grass roots social media campaigns at very low cost.

Have you heard of Fox News? It's a TV channel that runs completely fair and balanced news. Anybody who says otherwise is a weird conspiracy theorist. /s

Those elite investors can run large scale propaganda campaigns via the media that they own to sway voters from candidate A to candidate B.

Their preference is to cut candidate C (the kind that likes stuff like public housing, single payer healthcare, reducing military spending) out of the political system at a low level and let voters fight over A and B at the highest levels (e.g. president) safe in the knowledge that A and B both have billionaire best interests at heart and that voters really feel like they're getting a choice.

Which, of course, they are not: https://www.princeton.edu/~davidlee/wp/voterspolicies.pdf

what is california's excuse for not solving the problem? non-republicans control everything and have for decades - and yet the problem remains.

I guess it is much easier to just blame 'someone else', rather than solve the problem?

Except that’s not actually true. While overall California leans Democratic, there are substantial pockets of Republicans in the north and in the central valley.

Any weirder than the idea that, having managed to eventually buy my own home, I secretly want to go live in section 8?

Why is that?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com