standard "Reward Organizers"? (was Re: Periodic FAQ on document

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

standard "Reward Organizers"? (was Re: Periodic FAQ on document

Craig Carey-2
K.D. wrote:
>Steve Eppley writes regarding the standards to be laid out in the FAQ:
>>standard  Leverage Popularity
>
>I think, however, that I am driving more at something like "Rewards
>Organizers" or "Rewards Community-Builders" -- i.e. the system gives
>greater advantage to those who are able to build associations and
>networks of people (as expressed by the number of people giving
>time, money, and other resources) over those who are purely
>candidates of "ideas" or who can "buy friends" or "buy ideas".

I've changed my copy of the faq.
I need advice on how and when to post faq updates.  <<process>>

I can see how builders might be rewarded during a campaign (nonlinear
matching funds, for example), but I don't see how this could relate
to the election method.  Are you going to propose a ballot tallying
algorithm which takes as input some information which isn't in the
votes themselves?  My initial reaction to that is very negative.
People don't all have the same resources (spare time, money) so this
would harm the candidates of the poor and the busy.  I doubt that's
what you have in mind, so please elaborate.

It tilts the playing field away from the rugged individualists to
the communitarians, which I guess is what you mean.  I'd call myself
a communitarian, but I think an election system should be neutral.

con {{Reward Organizers {{neutrality
con {{Reward Organizers {{proportionality

--Steve

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

standard "Reward Organizers"? (was Re: Periodic FAQ on document

Craig Carey-2
I'm not proposing this, but it has been suggested that votes per
campaign dollar be counted instead of votes. SW rankings & PR votes
could be weighted in that way.

I'm not proposing that because I prefer simply outlawing bribes
(private contributions), and giving all candidates their rightful
share of airtime, based on some measure of public support. As has
been pointed out, the broadcast frequencies belong to the public,
as has been established by court rulings.


Mike



--