Money, geeks, and elections

I think we should simply disqualify anyone who doesn't read xkcd on regular basis.

I gave a lot in 2004. It broke my heart.

I, personally, do not have the financial resources to give oodles of cash to political campaigns. Most of us with any shred of social conscience give small amounts where we can, to specific causes -- and sometimes to help specific people. Sometimes charity begins at home. So it's rather unfair to say that scientists have an aversion to political donations, or distaste for the political world -- at least, not any more of an aversion than the rest of the population.

Perhaps the problem is related to the marginalization of science in our culture in general. Why does Don know only science and tech types in his professional network? Why hasn't he been reaching out to folks in law, or business, or other lucrative fields, particularly if he has political ambitions? If he is, and he's not succeeding in drumming up financial support, is that related to the general hostility and suspicion towards scientists that seems to lurk in those arenas?

Only other factor I can think of is donor burnout. Seriously, there's countless "good causes" clamoring for our attention and our dollars, and if you make one donation, sudden;y you're inundated with requests for more. It's a bottomless pit of financial requests, and it gets old pretty darn fast.

Maybe scientists (especially grad students!) just make less money than lawyers. Tell him to set up a Facebook campaign to get people to give him $2.30.
I did.
Hey, there's a Facebook group for people who are giving Obama $2.30. Apparently it reached $10,000.

A newly minted associate professor doesn't make that much and post-docs are still in the identured servitude phase of an academic career, but established university professors, private industry scientists, engineers, and doctors all do comparably well to the bulk of lawyers and businesspeople, although their high-outliers do make more.

I think it has more to do with skill sets. Law and business involve communcating to non-specialists audiences much more often than most science related fields as well as strategizing against human opponents.

Also, given the details of the race (top 3 vote totals in the district get seats, 2 R and 1 D seats currently), unless he's projected to have the second highest Democrat total, he's not going to get much support from the party fundraising network, which is the most important source, especially for new politicians who don't have a good list of prior donors to hit up.

Could it be as simple as the fact that most scientist/engineer/tech types have little respect for or trust in most of the types of people that run for office?

You're talking about groups of people that earn respect through peer review and collaboration toward solving common problems. Transparency and bipartisanship aren't traits that politicians are assumed to possess. I think Don could do quite well with this crowd if he can make his candidacy more visible to them.

I'm doing pretty well as an engineer these days, so I'm able to be moderately generous with a few candidates. If I weren't, I'd still be giving, just a lot less. The Obama campaign is the best-known example, but there's quite a few more that have taken in very healthy sums in very small quanta. Twenty, or even five bucks here and there really have added up. I've contributed to local candidates and one presidential campaign, but also to distant candidates who I've heard about felt inclined to support.

Every dollar counts, just as much as every vote does. If contributing isn't your thing, don't worry about it. But it might be, don't be put off by not having Rockefeller-deep pockets.

Rush Holt, a physicist who used to do research at Princeton University, is now a congressman representing central New Jersey. He is effective in his post, and has been re-elected by a good margin. (His campaign bumper sticker read "My congressman IS a rocket scientist!")

I believe there are 3 physicists in Congress. Holt, Ehlers from Michigan (who sat on the same plane as me three times, and just sort of gives that vibe of 'important'), and now Bill Foster who was elected just a few months ago in Michigan.

Although Hoover is the most 'technical' president. It sorta makes us engineers look bad.

As a scientist myself, I can say that there are number of issues that play against politics becoming a safe place for scientists. Primarily, there is the finanical/donation factor that rolls into one overarching theme I think most scientists share (as you point out): politicians should be evaluated on their merit through a peer-reviewed process, and money should not have anything to do with it. That's how we are evaluated in our line of work, and for the most part its successful. It's of course not how our political process operates.

In a democracy, or constitutional republic, the "peers" doing the review are supposed to be the constituents who elect representatives. However, as wealth, name-sake, celebrity, and bureaucractic power have taken over the joke that is our representative government, merit assessment has flown out the window. There are a lot of things to blame for this, such as the dumbing down of culture, the partisan media (who are supposed to be the unbiased political fact checkers constituents rely on in the peer-review process), and an overwhelming trend to simply elect lawyers, finanical professionals, or militar veterans to public office.

Science is additionally stigmatized at an early age as academia for the socially challenged. There are people in this country who treat elections - specifically Presidential ones - like a vote for prom king (just look at some of the Obama stuff this year). You can't be scientific in such a system: no amount of information, sound hypotheses, experimentation, or support can sway those who are socially bound to their viewpoints. Could there be any amount of information or evidence that would sway African-Americans to vote against Obama? Of course not. The same can be said of a different faction in their support for McCain, or any other candidate.

Why do (almost) all our public school teachers vote Democrat? That's a rhetorical question, but scientifically it makes no sense. Additionally, I could produce a plethora of evidence with sound conclusions on the merits of school vouchers which would be systematically rejected by the National Education Association (the teacher's maffia). Where's the scientific methodology in this process? There is none. If we as scientists want to maintain our integrity by being intellectually procedural about our conlusions, politics is the LAST PLACE we want to go.

Finally, to many scientific studies nowadays immediately find their ways into the hands of bureaucrats and legislators. These individuals never question of the validity of the findings if it fits into their world-view and philosophy. How about that study that was published a few weeks ago that said all Americans could be obese by 2040 (or some date like that)? It gets linked to website then is red-ink news on the DrudgeReport. Anybody question whether this was actually a good study? Any curiosity into whether its actually feasible? No, just more fuel to the fire, and when put in the hands of legislator more laws and less freedom.

Don't see anything here that would make a scientist want to be a politician.

Great comments all - especially Ethan's idea of the xkcd proficiency requirement for public office. As for financing, I agree with Becca that giving small amounts to candidates is a great idea - even 1/1000 of the personal limit of $2300. Probably even a grad student could handle that. :)

I'm sure that Don and other scientist politicians do reach out to larger networks of supporters, not just techies/scientists. But I was thinking more about the larger picture here for scientists, not just Don's campaign. While there's a lot of cynicism among scientists (and non-scientists!) about the electoral and political processes, which I think all of us share to some degree, I have to admire those people who think they can inject rationality and scientific expertise into the political equation, and are willing to turn their careers to that purpose. Go geek candidates!