Scott Alexander shares reader comments on his California ballot recommendations, updating some of his views and providing additional context on various races and propositions. Longer summary

This post highlights comments on Scott Alexander's California ballot recommendations. It covers various topics including Prop 31's impact on vaping, the Service Employees International Union's tactics regarding dialysis regulations, Newsom's campaign spending, Oakland mayoral race, and other ballot measures. Scott also updates some of his recommendations based on reader input, particularly for the Attorney General race. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander compares political spending to the almond industry, revealing surprisingly low amounts in politics due to coordination problems. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the surprisingly low amount of money in politics compared to other industries, using the almond industry as a benchmark. He notes that all US spending on candidates, PACs, lobbying, think tanks, and advocacy organizations combined is less than the annual revenue of the almond industry. The post examines various sectors of political spending and media properties, highlighting their relatively low monetary value. Scott discusses three reasons why this is surprising: ordinary people's political engagement, wealthy individuals' interests, and corporate influence post-Citizens United. He considers potential explanations, including Ansolabehere's argument about the ineffectiveness of political spending, but ultimately suggests that coordination problems are the main factor preventing more money from entering politics. The post concludes by drawing a parallel between political spending and charitable giving, arguing that the same coordination problems affect both areas. Shorter summary

The post explores the contradiction between studies suggesting elite influence on policy and those indicating money's limited impact on politics, offering several hypotheses to reconcile these findings. Longer summary

This post discusses two seemingly contradictory political science findings: one suggesting that elite opinion strongly influences US policy, and another indicating that money has little impact on politics. The author presents several hypotheses to reconcile these findings, including the possibility that legislators are themselves elites, that elites control cultural institutions, or that money influences politics through lobbying rather than campaign contributions. The post critically examines each hypothesis, considering their strengths and weaknesses in explaining the apparent contradiction. Shorter summary