|
Targeting in politics is widely used in determining the resources of time, money, and manpower to be deployed in political campaigns. Political parties, campaign committees and political action committees prefer to place their resources disproportionately in constituencies where victory is possible, but not assured. ==In the USA== A given constituency may be targeted for one purpose, but not for another. In the USA, inner city neighborhoods, with heavy Democratic populations, may not be targeted for legislative seats because the districts are safely Democratic, but will be targeted for Presidential elections to offset strong Republican areas elsewhere. Targeting has had important side effects. Heavily Democratic or Republican states tend to get little resources because of the emphasis on targeted states. Similarly, heavily Democratic or Republican legislative or Congressional districts are downplayed in significance. Targeting leads to the magnification of political trends. A constituency that might give the minority party 25% or 30% instead may fall to 10% or 15% over time because of lack of effort by its minority party. Local minority parties may atrophy and die: the majority party may rise to over 95% of the vote in some constituencies. Because of the negative effects on minority parties in ignored or downplayed constituencies, targeting is becoming increasingly controversial. One strong critic of targeting, Pennsylvania State Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia, has opposed targeting by new political organizations, warning that "targeting is counterproductive to the long-range interests of the Democratic Party. Elections are not short-term one-shot events, but recurring long-term events that require long-term organizational efforts in as many places as possible." 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Targeting (politics)」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|