Slashdot Mirror
PAC Asks Voters Where To Spend 10K
An anonymous reader submits "Not sure if this is for real or not, but for what it's worth, it seems like a Democratic PAC is letting people vote on where to spend US$10k of its money. Think Oregon is a more important swing state? Pennsylvania? Let' em know at ORvPA.org. What kind of issues does this raise? Think Republicans will try and game the vote? Does it really matter in the grand scheme of things? Is this a good example of trying to harness the wisdom of crowds?"
$10,000 can't buy much in a modern election. By putting up this website, and getting it linked here and probably elsewhere, the PAC will probably get its message across to thousands across the US.
If you're starting from nothing, it's not how much money you've got, or even where you use it, so much as your ideas and ingenuity.
If Howard Dean was running, there'd be a lot more web stunts like this. Don't know if that's a good or a bad thing though!
Mob mentality seems so strange to me, blown around by the subtlest breeze.
i mean, who out there actually paying attention says "ooh, look at the mud thrown in Bush's face, he looks horrible... and Kerry's standing there all clean... I think Kerry is the way to go.."
is that not how these polls indicate these people think? wasnt it mob mentality that put Jesus on the cross? I am ready for November... I have had enough...
~slashdot are my only freinds ):
Such efforts may well be able to capitalize upon the wisdom of crowds, but equally as important is that it helps people develop ownership of politics at a fundamental level. The Dean campaign was heavily "owned" by its supporters. It was dominated by the sincere solicitation of input, a high-velocity top-down and bottom-up flow of ideas, decentralized decision-making, and sustained local action. Joe Trippi, http://www.joetrippi.com/, correctly characterizes this dynamic of the campaign as I experienced it from the grassroots level. He frames it as a new, technology-enabled form of participatory democracy. Looking through this (admittedly) idealistic lens, I think having a PAC ask how best to spend the money donated to it could be a micro instance of this greater, transformed mode of political action. If people feel empowered by being sincerely let into the process and become more sustained, everyday participants, it will help fix the system.
1) Nader did not make the ballot in Oregon, which should strengthen Kerry against Bush quite a bit.
2) Oregon's polls show a trend of Kerry opening a gap, whereas Pennsylvania is trending towards a tie. (Of course, the site maintainer will be the first to say that these projections are not very reliable until October.)
3) Pennsylvania is more populous, which means more electoral votes at stake and more expense to reach the voters.
This Oregonian thinks the money is best spent in Pennsylvania.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd