Since “number of individual donations” (ideally high) and “average size of donations” (ideally low) seem to be frequent talking points among candidates and the press, and also relevant to getting into debates (I think), it seems like there may well be a good case for giving a token $1 to your preferred candidate(s). Very low cost and pretty low benefit. The same could be said for voting. But compared to voting, token $1 donations are possibly more effective (especially early in the process), and definitely less time-consuming.
My reasoning for donating is not based on those assumptions (1) money can increase the chance candidate X is elected and (2) candidate X’s being elected will produce a lot of good.
I’m not trying to replace the people in power. It is more effective to lobby the people already in power by taking full advantage of the existing system.
I have donated to specific candidates in the past and I actually regret that. It is much more effective to donate to a PAC like peace action. They can be much more strategic in spending and most importantly candidates can see how much they get from peace action and know where their bread is buttered. If I donate personally, my name doesn’t tell them what the money is for.
Also, let’s think in concrete terms about what these campaigns pay for. They pay for ads which can raise awareness. Some campaigns like the Bernie, Yang, and Ron Paul have impacted the conversation without winning.
But it is even more effective to donate to 501(c) 3 tax deductible activist organizations like code pink. They raise awareness of issues at a grass roots level. They lobby and they take advantage of volunteers. Plus it’s tax deductible and you can get employer matching.
FWIW, the difference in presidency score here between Biden and the Republican prior (with Biden better) is similar to that between Biden and the best Democratic candidate (although Trump is far worse than the Republican prior or Pence). I think the scores are intended to track expected utility roughly, and the differences between candidates seem pretty significant.
Check out the Excel sheets. They’re still being updated.
Echoing some of the discussion in your post, I think it’s very hard for us to determine in what cases political giving impact is “an exceptionally good opportunity” due to strong biases on what we think is good and, I think importantly, given how much most people value signaling their values even if the person they vote for to send the signal fails to adequately deliver on their stated values. To me this is one of the great challenges of making political choices: many candidates stand for things you might like, but then after the fact they consistently take or approve of government action that goes against those things you stand for in the name of “compromise” to “get things done”.
I have no special beef with realpolitik—that’s just how people works—but it does make it very hard to know what the net impact of a voting choice is since it’s hard to find politicians without mixed records that sometimes contain surprises that, in the final evaluation, might swap them from net positive to net negative effect on the world.
Since “number of individual donations” (ideally high) and “average size of donations” (ideally low) seem to be frequent talking points among candidates and the press, and also relevant to getting into debates (I think), it seems like there may well be a good case for giving a token $1 to your preferred candidate(s). Very low cost and pretty low benefit. The same could be said for voting. But compared to voting, token $1 donations are possibly more effective (especially early in the process), and definitely less time-consuming.
This was helpful research for something I needed—thank you
This paper estimates the cost effectiveness of climate activism as being in line with the cost effectiveness of clean air task force. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fttiTrTnrjCuqFNvw/fighting-climate-change-with-progressive-activism-in-the-us
My reasoning for donating is not based on those assumptions (1) money can increase the chance candidate X is elected and (2) candidate X’s being elected will produce a lot of good.
I’m not trying to replace the people in power. It is more effective to lobby the people already in power by taking full advantage of the existing system.
I have donated to specific candidates in the past and I actually regret that. It is much more effective to donate to a PAC like peace action. They can be much more strategic in spending and most importantly candidates can see how much they get from peace action and know where their bread is buttered. If I donate personally, my name doesn’t tell them what the money is for.
Also, let’s think in concrete terms about what these campaigns pay for. They pay for ads which can raise awareness. Some campaigns like the Bernie, Yang, and Ron Paul have impacted the conversation without winning.
But it is even more effective to donate to 501(c) 3 tax deductible activist organizations like code pink. They raise awareness of issues at a grass roots level. They lobby and they take advantage of volunteers. Plus it’s tax deductible and you can get employer matching.
FWIW, the difference in presidency score here between Biden and the Republican prior (with Biden better) is similar to that between Biden and the best Democratic candidate (although Trump is far worse than the Republican prior or Pence). I think the scores are intended to track expected utility roughly, and the differences between candidates seem pretty significant.
Check out the Excel sheets. They’re still being updated.
Echoing some of the discussion in your post, I think it’s very hard for us to determine in what cases political giving impact is “an exceptionally good opportunity” due to strong biases on what we think is good and, I think importantly, given how much most people value signaling their values even if the person they vote for to send the signal fails to adequately deliver on their stated values. To me this is one of the great challenges of making political choices: many candidates stand for things you might like, but then after the fact they consistently take or approve of government action that goes against those things you stand for in the name of “compromise” to “get things done”.
I have no special beef with realpolitik—that’s just how people works—but it does make it very hard to know what the net impact of a voting choice is since it’s hard to find politicians without mixed records that sometimes contain surprises that, in the final evaluation, might swap them from net positive to net negative effect on the world.