Is donating any amount, large or small, to a political candidate a smart use of one’s money, compared to all the other things one could do with it to Make The World A Better Place? Maybe I’m just naive and unpolitical, but all the money that gets spent on political campaigning seems to me like an enormous waste (especially in the case of the candidates that don’t win).
Would a candidate who said, “I’m going to take all the money I would have spent on campaigning and donate it to [insert worthy cause here] instead, but I still want you to vote for me” have a prayer of winning an election?
Nope
Thudlow Boink, you can think of it like giving money to charity. It moves the world just a little bit in the direction you want it going. Just as giving $20 to United Way probably won’t save anyones life or do an enormous amount towards global goodness, it will do something. And the same with $20 towards furthering your favorite political beliefs.
Yeah, but giving money to someplace like the United Way has a tangible result, like some poor family gets to eat, or some kid gets to go to camp, etc. But if I give the money to a political cause or candidate, it just sorta cancels out the money that somebody else gave to the other side.
No, $20 can actually pay for a 100 peice mailer. Or buy office supplies. Or help pay for refreshements for volunteers. Or pay for printing of fliers. Or many other things. Trust me, I run a political campaign.
Man, there’s a sentence mired in contradictions…
I think giving the money is a good idea, but donate anonymously if you know you won’t be giving any more. You will get a lot more fundraising mail in the future, of that I’m almost certain.
Funny Otto.
Strange as it is, I’m really not all that interested in politics. I wanted to be an event planner and this job was a way for me to start doing that. For the most part, I can’t stand politicians.
Shrug
I thought the idea of a donation is to show your support, to make you feel like you’ve contributed, and to be a part of a larger whole.
Not really because an individual donation will specifically help in and of itself. Which is hard to quantify.
The point of my previous post was to show that the only time a single individual’s vote actually matters is when the election is decided by a single vote, and you voted for the winning candidate. Otherwise, you would have been better off NOT voting, as it would have been a complete waste of your time.
Idle speculation and 'what if’s are totally irrelevant to the potential voter’s decision.
Now, back to the OP, in theory it’s easy to answer your question. In practice, it’s much more involved.
First, you need to determine what the value of your candidate winning actually is. Assume that Presidents are auctioned off to the highest bidder, and you’re bidding for the candidate you’re considering donating to. How much would you be willing to bid?
Next, determine the probability that your donation will actually make a difference in the election, causing your candidate to win. Not an easy figure to determine, but you’ll see later that it won’t matter and that you shouldn’t bother donating.
Then multiply the value of the candidate by the probability your donation will matter. This figure gives you the expected value of your donation, and will likely be infinitesimally small. Compare this figure to the cost, that is, the amount of your donation. If it’s greater than the contribution, donate. If it’s less, don’t donate.
Repeat this process for the entire universe of contributions you could conceivably make, and if any have a value greater than it’s cost, chose the one with the highest value/cost ratio.
If you apply the same reasoning to voting, you’ll see that it’s almost never worth your effort to do so. Rational people generally don’t vote or make campaign contributions.
So lemme think: this means that the only people who vote are irrational? Or, to put it differently, because of people acting rationally the irrational voice will prevail over the rational voice? Boy, that sure explains a lot about politics. 
But seriously, Surreal has given a nice reductio ad absurdum of the idea that individual goal rationality would be a proper basis for decision making. Thanks for the lesson!
Surreal,
That is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. By that same thread, you can pretty much disregard all charitable contributions as well. I mean, in the grand scheme of things, your $10 donation isn’t really going to make a difference, right?
:rolleyes:
$10 for a charity does SOMETHING.
A vote for a losing candidate, or a vote for the winning candidate who would have won anyway, does NOTHING.
The thing is you don’t know until after the election who actually was going to win. If a thousand Florida Republican voters would have followed your reasoning, the U.S. would now have a different president.
Maybe this is not such a bad idea after all, Surreal. Would you like to promote your ideas at the next Republican meeting? Bush sure is going to win anyway, dontcha think?
Note: the above goes even if your leanings are Democrat
**Surreal’s ** logic is incontravertible. However, that does not mean you should not vote or give money. I enjoy politics so I vote. I enjoy reading up on issues and coming to a conclusion and then voting for the person who shares that conclusion or against the person who does not. When the person I vote for wins it makes me feel like a part of a winning team, when the person I voted for loses at least I can say I was smarter than all those who voted for the other candidate. I vote because the good feeling I get from voting outways the cost of voting. I generally do not give money because the good feeling is not worth that much. If I had enough to spare that it could conceivably make a difference I would give it.
Your twenty dollars will no absolutely no effect of the prospects of your favorite candidate but if it makes you feel good to have made a symbolic gesture then give it, that way when Kerry gets beat in November you can say “If they had listened to me and nominated Dean, this would not have happened.” That may provide you with comfort 2004-2009.
Surreal, like someone else said, you don’t know who’s going to win when you’re giving your contribution. So that reasoning doesn’t really work.
There have been suprise elections, with the “underdog” winning.
People are giving you actual circumstances where your philosophy would have resulted in completely different election results and yet you continue to stand by your opinon. Can you actually sit there and say that if those voters in Florida a few years ago had your attitude, nothing would be different right now?
You could just as easily argue “but what if, instead of one vote, you were allowed to vote hundreds of times?”
You can’t vote hundreds of times, so what’s the point of such a question?
You’re only making a decision for YOU, not for everybody else. You can only effect 1 vote, and 1 vote has basically zero chance of ever deciding a presidential election.
You are for more likely to be killed in a car accident on the way to the polls than you are to cast the deciding vote in a presidential election. Given that fact, does voting sound logical to you?
Absolutely correct. That $10 goes to pay the exorbitant salaries of the likes of Libby Dole so she can perform her ‘ticket punch’ for higher office.
Surreal,
You don’t live in a bubble. Everything you do has an effect.
So what you’re basically saying, Surreal, is that since one vote doesn’t matter, nobody should vote.
Just because you probably won’t cast the deciding vote doesn’t mean that your vote doesn’t help whomever you vote for.
What does voting cost you, anyway? A few hours a year waiting in line and driving to and from the voting area? Given the fact that you’re exercising a right that millions of people have died for, I think it’s more than worth the time spent.