Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   $2.6 billion to be spent in this year's elections, a number greater than the nominal GDP of 36 countries   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 114
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

2112 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Nov 2006 at 11:49 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



114 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-11-05 01:24:13 AM  
And 50% of the people who do go to the polls will vote for a party, and did not need a bit of advertising. 40% more will vote on the sound bites without knowing anything about their truth or context. 10% will actually make a rational, informed decision, and they would have made it without the ads.
 
2006-11-05 01:27:21 AM  
but teh privatizashun alwaeys moer effishent!!one!
 
2006-11-05 01:28:04 AM  
Thats 8.6 million for every US citizen, and far more for every adult voter. Wouldn't it just be cheaper and better for our economy if they just flat out bribed us to vote for them?
 
2006-11-05 01:30:47 AM  
Snowflake Tubbybottom: Thats 8.6 million for every US citizen

I almost crapped my pants when I saw that number.

Then I opened my calculator and saw you were wrong (Thank God). It's $8.60 per citizen.
 
2006-11-05 01:35:51 AM  
8.60 per citizen but many can't vote and many more don't vote. so they could at least give us 20 bucks to vote for whoever. then we could afford to drink enough to forget who we voted for.

anyway, that would be wrong because then the people would actually benefit from something the government does, and that would be morally repugnant.
 
2006-11-05 01:39:16 AM  
I'll just take $8.10 in cash, and one pen (preferably from a non Republican candidate, I hate red ink).
 
2006-11-05 02:18:07 AM  
elchip: It's $8.60 per citizen.

Stupid microsoft calculator and its sticky zeroes.

Can I still have my $8 though?
 
2006-11-05 03:30:23 AM  
I would pay eight bucks if we could just ban political ads from TV altogether.

I know this violates the first amendment and all, but television advertising is (one of the many things) destroying the political process.
 
2006-11-05 09:20:59 AM  
Yeah, well, that just means there are some crappy little countries, don' it?
 
2006-11-05 09:30:22 AM  
You don't get much for $2.6 billion these days, do you?
 
2006-11-05 11:52:53 AM  
If it gets the Neo-conservative Republican majority out of power, then it'll be worth every penny.
 
2006-11-05 11:53:04 AM  
whatshisname: You don't get much for $2.6 billion these days, do you?

It was cheaper, back when this was alllll orange groves...
 
2006-11-05 11:54:02 AM  
And we'll spend more than that for video games. Seriously, 2.6 billion is like 1/5000 of the US's total economy, doesn't seem like an out of line number for deciding who's in the government.
 
2006-11-05 11:55:03 AM  
Eat More Possum: And 50% of the people who do go to the polls will vote for a party, and did not need a bit of advertising. 40% more will vote on the sound bites without knowing anything about their truth or context. 10% will actually make a rational, informed decision, and they would have made it without the ads.


And 37% will pull goofy statistics out of their ass.
 
2006-11-05 11:55:07 AM  
What election?
 
2006-11-05 11:57:34 AM  
It does seem a lot when the elections in Canada cost about 10 cents per person.
 
2006-11-05 12:00:10 PM  
">homepage.mac.com


HAL: I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you.

and

$2.6 Billion will surely help
 
2006-11-05 12:01:31 PM  
Snowflake Tubbybottom: Can I still have my $8 though?

Not even if you chase John Cusack down on your bike.
 
2006-11-05 12:01:55 PM  
worth every penny if the republicans get a good buggering
 
2006-11-05 12:02:29 PM  
Why not just have each candidate state their stance on a well-organized website?

They would be limited to 25 or 100 words each.

Everybody would certainly get more out of it, and we'd save something in the neighborhood of $2.599 billion.
 
2006-11-05 12:04:21 PM  
so, what does it mean if i know voting is a charade, but i do it anyway?

am i a patriot, or farking stupid?
 
2006-11-05 12:07:00 PM  
Why biatch about this? What are we going to do, outlaw freedom of speech?
 
2006-11-05 12:07:35 PM  
gulliver_redrick: am i a patriot, or farking stupid?

Scott Adams suggested an experiment. Track the votes of a number of stupid people and an equal number of geniuses. Correlate the votes to the group and who won the election. He wasn't certain which would be scarier: whether intelligence had an effect on voting or if it had no effect on voting.
 
2006-11-05 12:07:40 PM  
$2.6 billion is spent to determine leadership of a country with $12.41 trillion GDP and the world's most advanced weaponry? The horror!

$2.6 billion is about a third of what Americans spend on breakfast cereal yearly. I fail to see how the "omg we're spending too much on elections omg omg omg" crowd can get worked up about this.
 
2006-11-05 12:07:49 PM  
...and how much of it is just for the candidate to say "This is what I think of the issues."

answer: prolly none of it.
 
2006-11-05 12:08:18 PM  
Eat More Possum:And 50% of the people who do go to the polls will vote for a party, and did not need a bit of advertising. 40% more will vote on the sound bites without knowing anything about their truth or context. 10% will actually make a rational, informed decision, and they would have made it without the ads.

Newbaca:And 37% will pull goofy statistics out of their ass.

I dunno, Newbaca... I think EMP is probably closer to reality in that assessment then you give him credit for.

Think about it in terms of a normal election year... each party has a base. You could argue, based on Bush's polling numbers, each base consists of 30% of the people who do vote in the country. So, that means 60% will base their vote on the "R" or "D" next to the candidate's name, irregardless of what the opponent's ad/commercial/flyer/sign/etc. says.

That leaves 40%. You could say, with anecdotal evidence, that a majority of those 40% is too busy with their own lives (for better or for worse), making oh, 30% base their vote on whatever the most repeated soundbyte they've heard.

That'll leave 10% who do research on candidates, and are self-dubbed "political savvy". These people take all media with a grain of salt, and therefore, would do their own "research" into which candidate best represented them.

Of course, you could have just been crackin' wise, in which case I think EMP owes you a "49% of people think yo' momma is fat" in return.

Cheers!
 
2006-11-05 12:08:42 PM  
So 2.6 billion dollars is what it costs to make the citizens of the United States think it has any control in the decisions of this country? Mainly we have no say anymore, no matter what we do to protest or vote, it is always the same. Unless there is some way to evolve beyond our current corrupt system, then we are all truely lost. Our lives are dictated by greedy men and women, taking wealth and power from us by hitting on our emotions and preventing us from thinking. They steal our ability to vote by giving us faulty machines, they tax us to death and give our money to those who already have more than enough, and they put strength in those (police, military, ect) to take away our very sense of being in laws which make no sense except to herd us as sheep. If there is ever a possible way of getting back our country, we need to do it soon.
 
2006-11-05 12:09:19 PM  
whatshisname: You don't get much for $2.6 billion these days, do you?

You can say that again, feh!
 
2006-11-05 12:09:29 PM  
As a member of a finance team of a Congressional re-election race, I do apologize to America.

/that number makes me sick
 
2006-11-05 12:11:42 PM  
2006-11-05 11:57:34 AM Dalar

It does seem a lot when the elections in Canada cost about 10 cents per person.

But that is in US dollars so it equals 5 billion in Canadian
 
2006-11-05 12:13:19 PM  
img.photobucket.com
 
2006-11-05 12:13:22 PM  
Imagine if they had put that money to charities.
 
2006-11-05 12:15:35 PM  
I say we ban all political advertising. If they can't get it done with public debates and townhall meetings then too bad.
let's get the moneymen out of it.
 
2006-11-05 12:15:52 PM  
All that money, and it pretty much comes down to this...

Customer: ...and I'd like a large Coke.
Waiter: We have Pepsi.
Customer: Okay.

Basically, you just choose your least offensive bastard.
 
2006-11-05 12:16:01 PM  
About the same amount Americans spend on chewing gum per year.
 
2006-11-05 12:16:19 PM  
2.6 billion! Not nearly enough, America spends more money on yogurt than they do choosing their leaders. How sad is that?
 
2006-11-05 12:19:23 PM  
I say we ban all political advertising. If they can't get it done with public debates and townhall meetings then too bad.
let's get the moneymen out of it.


Hear, hear!
 
2006-11-05 12:19:39 PM  
thatguyfred: Imagine if they had put that money to charities.

I imagine if you added all of the money up a hell of a lot more than 2.6 billion goes to charities each year. I'd bet on it.
 
2006-11-05 12:26:04 PM  
why not just put a cap on ATTACK ADS. not regular "hey guys this is my platform" ads, as rare as they are.
 
2006-11-05 12:27:07 PM  
Assuming about 80 million people vote (the turnout in 2002 was 75 million) that makes $32.5 per vote.

And people wonder why politiciens are in the pockets of lobbyists and corporations. No money = No votes, which means money > votes.
 
2006-11-05 12:29:37 PM  
Charity is big business in the US. Last I heard, in 2004 the US gave 250 BILLION to charity. 2.8 billion to decide who is going to run government is chump change, literally 2 orders of magnitude less.
 
2006-11-05 12:31:37 PM  
36? name them...
 
2006-11-05 12:36:43 PM  
LargeCanine

2.8 billion is NEVER chump change. So, it's not much compared to 250 billion, but it would feed a LOT more mouths.

If I told you that you could save hundreds of lives by pulling some political ads in just ONE city, would you say "no thanks, I'm so self-absorbed that I'll keep my ads."? I'd gladly give up watching dumbass ads on television if 10 year-old Katy down the street could have a coat for the winter.

/end rant.
 
2006-11-05 12:42:55 PM  
It's still 'We the people' right?

I could barely write that and not fall laughing to the floor. Welcome everyone, welcome to the plutocracy.

here's a list of lies we tell our kids:

Santa is real
So is the Easter Bunny
You could grow up to be president
 
2006-11-05 12:43:22 PM  
country_boy: I imagine if you added all of the money up a hell of a lot more than 2.6 billion goes to charities each year. I'd bet on it.

Wow you're right! What does that have to do with this?
 
2006-11-05 12:45:23 PM  
Klintor
I'd gladly give up watching dumbass ads on television if 10 year-old Katy down the street could have a coat for the winter.

Well, given that the gist of most of these ads are that the Other Guy's platform is going to leave poor Katy roaming the streets in rags, I can see where they might think the ads are a better investment.

/am getting a little tired of Newt Gingrich calling my answering machine, though.
 
2006-11-05 12:50:46 PM  
I have a plan to solve world poverty.

We change the system so we randomly select some poor country and have them vote for us. The influx of billions of dollars of campaign spending would fund them for years. Just think of all the lost man-hours hardworking Americans lose going to and waiting in line at the voting booth that we will recoup.

Seriously, how much worse of a decision could another country make for us?
 
2006-11-05 12:50:51 PM  
asmodeus224

It's still 'We the people' right?

I could barely write that and not fall laughing to the floor. Welcome everyone, welcome to the plutocracy.

here's a list of lies we tell our kids:

Santa is real
So is the Easter Bunny
You could grow up to be president


yeah, some poor trailer-trash kid whose dad dies before he's born and whose stepdad gets drunk and beats his ass, growing up out in the sticks in Arkansas, has no shot.
 
2006-11-05 12:52:58 PM  
and it was all spend on crappy attack ads that do nothing but advertise for the other candidate.

seriously, if you're running for office, tell us what YOU have done and plan to do, not what your opponent has done.

I am completely sick of american politics.
 
2006-11-05 12:56:54 PM  
It wasn't your $2.6B to begin with, so STFU.

The money is spent on swing voters and people who don't vote, not party faithfull.

Would you really rather have nothing spent on an uneducated electorate?

All the headline says is 36 countries are too small to grow $2.6B.
 
Displayed 50 of 114 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report