Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by xnx 591 days ago
> our elections get fought out in a small number of places which is an economically efficient way to do it.

In theory shouldn't money spent go right up to the limit of expected return, whether there is one "swing state" or 50?

1 comments

when i say economics, i'm not referring to money, i'm referring to human endeavor, human effort and human rewards (which, in terms of economics, are exactly what money represents) So, I meant that it's it economically beneficial that most people in the country don't need to care about elections because the system is taking their preferences into account already. There is little to be gained on margin from engaging many more people for only the slightest difference in outcome once in awhile. Since the forces of negative feedback actually move the centerlines wrt to the system we have, it's not clear that the long term results would even be different with a different system.