The Origins of the Investment Theory of Party Competition
Alas, today, it is necessary to ask whether the United States and similar countries are not sliding into a new form of “affluent authoritarianism.”
Refining models of voter behavior to take more account of voter ignorance is pointless if you systematically bypass what’s driving the system, especially when money speeds across state lines at the speed of light.
By Thomas Ferguson
Great piece, eloquent writing, sobering reality.
I am growing skeptical that the noise and smoke can be reverted.
@artemis
Yes this is a massive problem.
It is systemic, and so not easily fixed by some legislation, or even a mass movement.
@corlin @artemis
There is another thing that isn't dealt with there -- the reason the ratio of money to election success is near-linear is that the major parties don't spend money on races that aren't competitive. There are a high percentage of races in Red States with no democrat in the race at all, or only one with no financial backing. Money still won't make the difference when the Republicans are 80% of registered voters, so they don't spend any.
@Kinnison @corlin @artemis
I'm thinking more Wyoming. You can un-gerrymander all you want, and it's a red state. But if there were Democratic political messages even for races there's no hope of winning, in 20 years, there could be some competitive races. That's just the interval between George W Bush and now.
@AlphaCentauri @corlin @artemis I think the Polarization is more due to Gerrymandering
competitive districts will tend to have more moderate candidates. While "safe" gerrymandered districts will end with up having more radical candidates for what ever side they are for
Jim Jordan and AOC are great examples of this. It works on both sides of the partisan divide