[kevin]

Hey guys, good to hear from you again!

Why do think your company is a B2C company? You're selling the software to politicians / political organizations. The consumer awareness part of this will be handled by your customers if this is part of a greater trend of voters wanting more transparency and accountability of their representatives.

Of course, candidates will adopt this only if they find out they can win elections by adopting this software/philosophy. So part of your job will be to do everything you can to help your candidates win. Basically, if you do this right, you could turn the US into a three party system.

So the education you're going to do should be the talking points and marketing materials needed by their candidates to convince voters. Think of your first candidates like a beta test of a new sales force. You'll learn from them after this upcoming elections what worked and didn't work with constituents and you'll amplify on the next election cycle.

But that to me, isn't the most important thing you should be focused on. If it were me, I'd try to get as many candidates using your software on the ballot as possible.

Do you know the best conditions are the best for a candidate running the placeavote platform? eg. does this work best for a candidate in a heavily contested race?

[ljd]

Great talking again, Kevin!

Good question! We're not selling to politicians or political organizations. Our PAC is running candidates that are part of our community. People like you and I; professionals in tech that wouldn't mind making $170k to do literally nothing but proxy votes for their district.

Regarding what candidates need to tell voters, we're really looking to run a very centralized campaign, where people can come to our site to find out which name to vote for. We've found ways of legally hacking the election system so that we get ballot access, and differentiate our candidates in a uniform way. So we still see ourselves as a consumer product.

Is it wrong that we are adamant about remaining B2C? I want to find the best possible path, but I don't see how turning politicians that are so used to political donations for favorable voting will decide to shun their financiers to listen to the people they were voted to represent. It feels like that is a practice in futility.

We both agree on the last point, since we've spoken, we've picked up 11 new candidates in California and 9 abroad. We are trying to saturate the 2016 ballot with candidates.

Half our team are data people (I'm an algo dev myself) so finding the best conditions is something we are sorting out with data right now.

[kevin]

Being a PAC sounds like the most expensive way to do this. Usually, that's not a good way to do a startup. Also, this sounds so cynical.

I'd start with the true believers. People who believe this is the best way to represent the people. Those people will win races because it will feel like a revolution when you hear them talk about you. It's the best kind of sales people to have.

I'd be very worried about having your kind of people talk about your movement. No one wants to feel like they're voting for a tax mooching puppet.

[ljd]

With a ~10% approval rating for congress and historical lows across the board for most Americans, I'm not sure it's cynicism.

I don't think you could honestly find someone that feels like they are being represented in congress. Our lobbying system is an open joke that we wish we could do something about.

Also, our PAC is funding those true believers but most people don't realize that it costs thousands of dollars to run for congress and most Americans don't have that money. We can help these campaigns with a PAC.

We're looking for people that are tired of a broken system and have the desire to make change but need a strong toolset to do that. We're building that toolset. Part of that means we build the world's most secure voting platform that's has a clear audit trail and it also means that we can't turn a blind eye to the fact that it takes money to win elections in the United States.

[kevin]

Your language here is what I prefer. You wrote this:

"professionals in tech that wouldn't mind making $170k to do literally nothing but proxy votes for their district"

This description of your first candidates is what I find cynical. They should feel like true believers. Not opportunistic passive income collectors.

[ljd]

Yeah, I understand your point. I think I'm communicating why someone has a personal incentive to run for congress under our system since they won't be receiving lobbying money. I'm hoping the electorate isn't under the belief that congressional salaries are negotiable. I don't see why people can't feel passionate about this project and also be compensated for improving a system that is rife with inefficiencies.

[ljd]

Since the original question was never answered, if anyone has experience with my problem set please email me ldavis at placeavote.com.