I think the problem is that elections are this ridiculous zero-sum game that is able to consume ever increasing amount of resources, where almost entire contribution of one party goes to cancel out the contribution of another party.

I don't actually feel it is zero sum. There is a lot of learning that happens through debate at all levels. One might argue it is the foundation of our society.

I wasn't thinking about the debates. I was thinking about all the money spent on campaign advertisements - on posters, phone calls, radio ads, TV ads, Internet ads, and so on, and so on. All that does is cancel out similar efforts from other candidates.

All that stuff leads the rest of us to debate too. The system depends upon having informed voters. As silly as that may sound today, I do feel that puts us in a better position to make progress than the other forms of government that exist.

> There's a pretty strong correlation between outspending and winning elections. The losing side usually spent less. In aggregate, much more money is spent winning elections than losing them.

A lot of money is wasted on lost elections. I did say "equal", but my point was a lot of advertising dollars fail.

Barney Frank: "If the voters have a position, the votes will kick money's rear end any time. I've never met a politician-- I've been in the legislative bodies for 40 years now-- who, choosing between a significant opinion in his or her district and a number of campaign contributors, doesn't go with the district."

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/t...

How does this explain the Republican party's continued support for healthcare bills with sub-25% approval ratings? Also I don't see Barney Frank, Signature Bank board member and author of a piece titled "Yes, I Took Bank Money. And It Made Me a Better Regulator" as a disinterested commentator.

Among the Republicans I know, all Obamacare-lite bills are more popular than Obamacare.

And there's probably a belief that people will like the bills after it passes. Just as a lot of 'conservatives' eventually came out in favor of Obamacare (like McCain), I'm sure a lot of people would admit that they like Obamacare-lite more than Obamacare. Self-interested politicians might think that the bills would be more popular once some people saw their health care burdens drop. And I don't think they're wrong, the healthy people who make Obamacare possible stand to gain the most under the Republican healthcare proposals - the young, the wealthy, the healthy.

Half the country votes and half the country votes GOP, a 25% approval rating can translate to near-universal approval in a political faction.

The amount of money spent on American elections is incredible.

In the 2012 US Presidential election (seems the data is not yet available for 2016), an estimated $7B was spent in total by all candidates and private groups. This is about $21.54 per person.

For comparison, in the last Canadian federal election, the top 5 parties combined received $127M in funding (public + private contributions). This amounts to about $3.60 per person, about one sixth as much on a per capita basis.