Has this fact been established here? If the funding level makes marginal difference, then why the draconian measures?

The downside of these measures is that we limit free speech - a far more dangerous proposition in my view, and one that I’m surprised Greens have *anything* to do with, although not surprised if it turns out the “communist core” depiction is accurate.

I am excluding the “dirty tricks” aspects of this, as efforts to purposely disenfranchise voters are not large features in elections here. They are however, one of the reasons Bush retained the presidency in 2004. The record in Ohio is bizarrely bad and only the fact that Kerry refused to take it to the courts kept it from entering the public eye. Money makes dirty-tricks possible, but it doesn’t happen so much here.

Money alters the outcome of tight contests. I am not sure that any amount of money will affect the negatives that Labour has accumulated. Money pays however, for voter outreach campaigns that get more people involved at the grass-roots level to bring in new voters. It pays for the image building efforts. It pays for the best advertising firms and the best ideas to keep the brand in the public eye. If a party is performing poorly, particularly the party in power, money will not cure it. If performing well, money will not destroy it.

Lack of money however, to be unable to reach the cap on spending due to an inability to raise the funds, is costly. People who do not see your message at all cannot begin to form an opinion of it.

Overall I want the money not to be the governing issue, and I want the expenses of the campaigns to be reduced to the point that anyone can play.

I also want to have a period in which the rest of the noise is shut off and only the positions as enunciated by a party itself are placed in media releases. There is no controlling the news media, they will continue to distort all positions as they invariably do, but we will get a better look at the party positions. That not only helps Greens, whose positions are invariably distorted mightily…. but it will help all parties participating in the democratic process.

respectfully
BJ

Smirk. Never much cared for watermelon, myself.

>>Greens are branded as dope smoking, jandal wearing, folk dancing communists.

I think there is a fair amount of truth in it, and a brand achieved with little in the way of advertising budget.

I understand your points.

Unlike the USA, we have high participation rates in elections, and people are interested in their democracy. I would like to see a New Zealand study of the causal link between the size of budgets compared to the seats/% won.

It has been assumed that more money leads to more votes. Where is the evidence?

The problem the EB face and faced then is that they are a fringe group, a group that once identified as espousing a particular cause provided its own negatives to the equation. Much the same problem as the Greens have with other parts of the electorate, but we do not try to hide who and what we are.

The fact is that THEY actually understood this, and so attempted to hide their involvement in the advertising. The negative effect you speak of came into play after they were “outed”.

As long as the source of the money can be hidden the voters do not get to exercise that level of judgment and only the advertising effects will be felt. When the source of the advertising is known Americans and New Zealanders alike consider the source as well as the message.

As an American expat I am not exactly unfamiliar with the effects of advertising. The advertising that works is subtle and often indirect. The image creation and brand awareness advertising. Greens are branded as dope smoking, jandal wearing, folk dancing communists. This is the message everyone hears and gets all the time. In fairness it describes only the most radical members, but it is used against the party with devastating effect. We have done little to rebrand ourselves. I think I understand this, but it leaves us always vulnerable. A portion of all the other party publicity has always been to play on that branding. Not a strong message, but a constant dripping of acid against the stone. We do nothing to counter it at all because we do welcome the dope smoking, jandal wearing, folk dancing communists. The fact that most of us are just ordinary citizens with extraordinary vision, is lost.

The direct campaigns that work tend to do so at the margins. The “swift boat” campaigns that pile lie upon lie until nobody at the margin can stay there because of the polarization. A portion of the electorate looks at the charge and counter-charge, lie and rebuttal stacked by the column foot in the papers and simply throws up their hands, shakes their heads and walks away. That’s the PRIMARY effect… not to change people’s minds but to dissuade them from making a choice.

If you do not think this is a calculated and carefully understood effect you mistake the real knowledge of the advertising firms in the USA. They know almost exactly what will happen in the demographics they target.

So anonymity is a problem. Money too is a problem.

I have proposed because it is simple and simply enforced, that no third parties INCLUDING the government, can advertise any political position in a pre-election period. That there be an exception if most of the parties agree, to government advertisement that is necessary to health and safety.

For that period nobody gets to speak about the party’s policies but the party itself or an opponent party and all discussion of this nature in the public fora (excepting the debates) counts against the party cap. So a party indulging in a lot of negative message will be doing so at the expense of their positive message… and this will be noticeable due to the absence of the third party commentary.

I didn’t casually come up with this. I have been watching the deterioration in the USA for most of a lifetime. I understand it quite well, and I understand the ways in which people with money can exploit every tiny hole in the wall.

respectfully
BJ

BJ seems to understand the average American’s response to advertising very well.

Study after study shows people vote based on personality. Bradford could be handed billions in advertising funding, but I personally doubt she’d win a seat directly.

I dispute the assumption that funding differences make much of a difference to the end result.

In the USA the public is under a FPP balloting system and is extremely susceptible to perceived vote utility. Not a lot of folks vote. Money is spent not just on advertising but also on legal challenges and finding ways of disenfranchising voters. It counts… but that perceived utility is a killer.

Americans won’t shift votes. They can however, be persuaded NOT to vote. They can be persuaded that their party’s candidate is no good/no better, by clever advertising and proper promotions. They can be persuaded to stay home, but not to switch sides.

There are limits to the damage big money can do… but the acceptable limit to the damage it can do is zero.

I would be very hesitant to apply US studies to NZ conditions. I know there are serious differences in the conditions.

respectfully
BJ

The EBs money clearly worked against them. Really, the left should be encouraging the EBs to spend far more next time round.

I read a study in the States - they essentially pitted the candidates against themselves. The study found that it didn’t matter how much a candidate spent, it didn’t shift their vote by more than 1%. The public either liked the candidate, or they didn’t.

Read your comments after posting mine. In my view whomever tabled all 70 odd pages of this bill could have done a far better job of structuring and explaining what they wanted to achieve plus (and this is the biggie for me) what the consequances would be if enacted.

With the current police record of not prosecuting (even when a prima facia case is establised) political wrongdoings, what chance after this bill is passed?

I suspect that there will be many breaches of this act in the future and very few Police prosecutions.

I dont think our constitutional law (and I suggest the public prosecutors and police will see it this way as well) is robust enough to handle the consequances of an election having to be ratified through the court system.

Which perfectly suits the party with the most money to spend on legal services. The very thing this bill was going to stop.