One issue is that $10m of ads for one party and $8m in ads for the other is not equivalent to $2m in just one, as most ads aren’t for getting people to switch sides, but to just attend at all.
I’m not sure I’m seeing how “most ads aren’t for getting people to switch sides” means “$10m of ads for one party and $8m in ads for the other is not equivalent to $2m in just one”
As ads are made to encourage people to vote, and some people are more or less concerned about voting, each addition ad dollar has a lower effect.
A hypothetical $10m in ads could get 85% of x voters, and $8m could get 70%, but $2m would get 50% and $0m would get 25%, so the 8:10m in funding would be preferential to the 0:2m.
At some point this incentive mechanism would stop working because a party receiving 0 vs a party receiving non-zero would benefit more from having money at the margin.
One issue is that $10m of ads for one party and $8m in ads for the other is not equivalent to $2m in just one, as most ads aren’t for getting people to switch sides, but to just attend at all.
I’m not sure I’m seeing how “most ads aren’t for getting people to switch sides” means “$10m of ads for one party and $8m in ads for the other is not equivalent to $2m in just one”
As ads are made to encourage people to vote, and some people are more or less concerned about voting, each addition ad dollar has a lower effect.
A hypothetical $10m in ads could get 85% of x voters, and $8m could get 70%, but $2m would get 50% and $0m would get 25%, so the 8:10m in funding would be preferential to the 0:2m.
ah, yeah, that’s what I was referring to with: