Running for local office is not in fact all that expensive at all!

For a house representative, it is around 2M dollars every two years. That's 870M dollars of special interest money every two years and 7B dollars every four years. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/7-billion-spent-on-201...

Which is a problem. But I believe tptacek mean state, county town and city positions, and not necessarily in a legislative capacity.

Yes. I'm specifically suggesting not running for federal office, but instead running for local office and using that position --- which is gettable --- as a base for further influence. It's not my idea; it's something a friend of mine, who has done it, is pushing.

I couldn't agree more. You said it perfectly. The federal offices and state offices, all that stuff is easy. The hard work, and where the opportunity is, is figuring out the obscure Water Districts, Port Commissions, and similar positions. Very winnable, and they create momentum.

True, but House elections are hardly "local" -- I think they were implying city and county level offices.

Running might not be expensive, but I bet winning is.

My wild-ass guess (not a political science major) is that voters can be bucketed into the following broad groups:

A: People who vote straight party-line, no matter what. A toad could be on the ticket and they'd vote for it.

B: People who vote for whatever name they most recognize.

C: People who actually study the candidate's positions and make a rational choice.

Generously let's say A=80%, B=17% and C=3% of voters.

Whether or not you get A's vote depends entirely on what letter is next to your name--you have no control. B's vote is expensive because you need to carpet the area with saturation advertising in order for them to remember you when they fill out the form. C is so small that it's probably not worthwhile to do the legwork. So you end up spending tons of money hoping that you can get B to tip the scale towards you. At least that's how it looks to me.

> A: People who vote straight party-line, no matter what. A toad could be on the ticket and they'd vote for it.

Since the parents is discussing running for local office, I'm not sure why you think party comes in to play. Or perhaps this is a regional thing? In my city, party affiliations are not advertised/listed for positions such as city council, mayoral, parks board etc.

Interesting, I seem to recall party affiliation on most of the local positions on my ballot. Granted, not for things like library board member.

There's party affiliation in some local elections, but the elections themselves are not necessarily expensive.

Running for statewide or federal office is extremely expensive. What I'm saying is, don't do that, at least for your first win. Instead, win a seat on your local library board or parks district.

Sorry I deleted the original comment, remembered wrong facts.

Obama was a state senator in Illinois before running for US Senate.

The rule of thumb I was given was $1 per resident (not voter) for the office under consideration -- just to have a chance.

I understand what you meant, I just wanted to get attention for my belief that we shouldn't be relying on special interest money at all to call it a democracy.

Why does it have to be expensive? This is the fundamental question we should be asking and should be trying to find solutions to.

It shouldn't be, but the only way to change that is through politics, which means working through the current system.

To keep riff-raff like you and me out, of course.