Point #2 Continuing our “bizarro world” exploration of my Q, what if that darn evil genius went to our Senate candidate personally, and said: same Q, except you make one decision that covers all your supporters, and all your potential voters. What would be the correct choice for our hypothetical typical elephant or donkey Senate candidate…
Voting? While like duh, he’d lose 100% if zero of his potential voters actually ended up voting for him. There is no need to even examine te donate or message options. VoteHarder™ is obviously the only correct choice.
Point #3: While Point #1 (the candidate personally would choose “accept donations”, barring some edge cases involving self-financed campaigns), and Point #2 (the candidate would chose “vote” for all their potential voters as a group), are interesting in that they demonstrate that the Q is not trivial, or obvious, or has a one-size-fits-all answer… they are not analogous reverse counterparts to the dilemma rank-n-file voters would be faced with if confronted by our evil genius. OTOH, Point #3 is just such an analogous reverse counterpart.
Under Point #3, our evil genius sidles up to our Senate candidate, and says: “Same Q, but this time how it relates to an individualized marginal voter. Would you, as the candidate, want such a marginal individual to vote, or donate, or to say volunteer to work a phone bank doing push-polling (messaging)?”
Point #3A: First off, we run into a great glaring difference between the normal world version of the Q: what a marginal individual voter would choose -vs- the “bizzaro” world version of the Q: what the candidate would want such a marginal voter to choose. And the reason for this great glaring difference is this: by our premise (ver 3, yes I suck) our “battle ground” voter feels voting is important, works, and is actually a duty. On the candidate side, of course they feel voting is important and works… by definition.
However, candidates don’t feel the voting public has any effective duty to vote.
Now, let’s remember this old truth: you can tell a politician is lying because words are spewing out of their pie-hole. Sure, all these snake-oil peddlers are going to carry on about how voting is better than baseball, apple pie, Chevy’s or even your own mom. Luckily for us, however, we don’t need to get our hands covered in filth trying to evaluate the truth value of their gibberish. Action speaks louder than words. We can simply look at the historical record.
We already know that the elephants don’t feel that the voting public has any effective duty to vote. They are, in fact, a party who actively pursues voter suppression as a strategy.
In general the donkeys, as the majority party, and as the relatively less funded party (on a voter per capita basis, and not withstanding the WOAT H.Clinton’s losing reversal of this generality in POTUSBOWL 2016)… are going to be in general… in favor of increased voter turnout overall.
But of course, there are plenty of localized examples where the tables are turned, and the donkey candidate would benefit from reduced voter turnout overall. And sure, the donkeys haven’t earned a reputation for flat out voter suppression… they do have a track record of doing everything short of outright suppression to keep the number of voters down in these localized situations.
- But really it’s more obvious than that. Every effective ad that targets a candidate’s supporters to get off their butt and vote… is an ad that does not target the opponents supports to do the same (otherwise it wouldn’t be effective). Every effective ad that targets the opponent’s supporters to give up and be lazy and not bother to go vote… is an ad that does not target the candidate’s supports to be so lazy (otherwise it wouldn’t be effective). Every effective ad that targets the undecided possible non-voters to vote for the candidate… is an ad that does not target that demographic to vote for the opponent (otherwise it wouldn’t be effective).
Every GOTV effort that is party-centric (as opposed to helping all voters get to the polls, regardless of party), or geographically targeted, or targeted in any other way what-so-ever, are also excellent examples.
Cliffs: Virtually every strategy and tactic of modern campaigning obviously and glaringly highlights this basic truth: to the candidates themselves, and regardless of what lies they may habitually spew, there is no effective duty of the rank-n-file voters to actually vote.