According to the recent rules, you'd have to distinguish 'hard money' (advertising on specific candidates) from 'soft money' (advertising on 'issues' (wink, wink)). There are a lot of people who would be happy to vote for a particular candidate, if they could personally receive their pro rata share of the advertising dollars spent on them. At 08:53 AM 11/16/02 -0800, Thane Plambeck wrote:
This started me thinking about modelling votes by "buying them." Ie ignore all the (probably inessential, anyway) actual differences between candidates, and just assume that each "side" has a certain amount of money to be spent buying votes. Is there a sense in which that analyst is right for certain assumptions (I'm not sure what they might be?)
Thane
Thane Plambeck 650 321 4884 office 650 323 4928 fax