[snapdangle]

Sorry, but that seems a bit confused. If there are not enough votes for a stadium, then there will not be enough votes to throw out a candidate for "not backing" a stadium.

Not allowing people a voice in the question and then blaming democracy for it? You can't blame an abstract system of government for sports owners making sweatheart deals that ignore public sentiment.

[sgt101]

I think you are thinking that elections are a zero sum game, but the reality is that most people either don't vote, always vote for a party no matter what or vote for the candidate that they know. Politicians are all about influencing the swing vote - get people who never vote to vote for you or alternatively influence some small part of the electorate that does make positive decisions. Most people who don't want the stadium will either not vote or vote the way that they would have anyway, the calculation is that voters who are "fans" will vote positively for the people who stick up for their team. Stir in the "I'll vote for the person who's popular" block (which politicians are hoping that the free exposure in the stadium campaign will grant) and the negative effect of shutting out your opponent (because backing like this is strangely exclusive for some reason).

[thomasz]

This is not how it works. If there is a number of people who really really really care about a single issue, it might be advisable for a politician to pander to their particular interests on the expense of the majority who cares only mildly about the issue.