The campaign team flew EA community organisers from across the world to knock on doors, and ended up paying over a thousand dollars per vote.
Would you consider $1000 per vote worthwhile if it resulted in Carrick winning? Also, if EA has a similar opportunity in the future, in an election with a similar number of voters (around 60,000), what’s the maximum number of dollars spent per vote that you’d consider justifiable?
This happened in the USA, which has a political system tailored to facilitate the purchasing of elections.
Is that true? This is not my area of expertise, but my sense was that “buying elections” is often impossible or inordinately expensive, outside of races against nobodies with very little money. (I’ve heard ad-spending worked really well in competitive races in the recent midterm, but this is noteworthy exactly because it’s somewhat unusual.)
Isn’t the point with the Carrick thing not only that it failed, but that we shouldn’t have been doing that kind of thing? It seemed like a pretty big break from previous approaches which were to stay out of politics
Would you consider $1000 per vote worthwhile if it resulted in Carrick winning? Also, if EA has a similar opportunity in the future, in an election with a similar number of voters (around 60,000), what’s the maximum number of dollars spent per vote that you’d consider justifiable?
Is that true? This is not my area of expertise, but my sense was that “buying elections” is often impossible or inordinately expensive, outside of races against nobodies with very little money. (I’ve heard ad-spending worked really well in competitive races in the recent midterm, but this is noteworthy exactly because it’s somewhat unusual.)
Isn’t the point with the Carrick thing not only that it failed, but that we shouldn’t have been doing that kind of thing? It seemed like a pretty big break from previous approaches which were to stay out of politics