It occurs to me that politicians (especially American politicians) effectively sell shares in themselves throughout their career. A lot of this is entirely obvious, in the form of campaign funding from various parties. If we assume that the strength of a politician comes partly from their public persona and partly from the strength of their shareholders then simple approval ratings are misleading, or at least are fragile, because powerful backers want to see the man or woman they backed win, and will leverage their own power to support them.
Even if this factor accounts for only 10% of the outcome of an election, it’s still a significant factor, certainly enough to change the course of a Presidential election. Now, my assumption is that the strength of campaign donors is directly connected to their own financial health. Anyone who is seeing shares in their company drop, or business drying up or is even in the middle of a divorce, is probably going to be a poorer ally than someone who is having a good time in business.
So, what I am suggesting is calculating a modifier to be applied to a politician’s approval rating that is ultimately based on the value of donor stock. This modifier has a greater influence the more time there is until the election, as these back room forces need time to wield their power.
Do you think this kind of system would work?