[EM] <<process>> Periodic FAQ on document process

Wynott at aol.com Wynott at aol.com
Wed Mar 6 06:58:53 PST 1996

In a message dated 96-03-05 17:49:00 EST, Steve Eppley writes regarding the
standards to be laid out in the FAQ:

>standard  Leverage Popularity
>   Weinert

Steve --

You've done a much better job of putting these standards into pithy packages
than I could have hoped.  As I mention in another note, though, I think that
I wasn't very precise in my earlier standards memo regarding my third point,
which I called "increasing the advantage of breadth".   "Leveraging
popularity" might be one way to interpret that, i.e. the system should give
greater advantage to candidates who have broad popular support over those
with a few friends -- but that's kind of a tautology in the elections reform
world.  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".  

Note: I'm ambivalent about the ultimate plusses vs. minuses of such a value,
since I'm leery of any system that does not lead to campaigns being about
ideas and values, as much as about how many connections each candidate has
built up over the years.  But I think it's a value that many activists in the
progressive community will consider when evaluating reform proposals.

-- K.D. Weinert

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list