[EM] Electoral standards

Wynott at aol.com Wynott at aol.com
Wed Mar 6 06:59:04 PST 1996

In a message dated 96-03-05 17:48:31 EST, you write:

>>At the risk of throwing in an entire new set of variables and
>>considerations, I'd like the group to consider adding the following
>>criteria, which are designed to take into account the distorting
>>factor that money spent in the political process has [snip]
>>1) Reducing the advantage of wealth [snip]
>>2) Increasing voter participation ("breadth")[snip]
>>3) Increasing the advantage of breadth [snip]
>I don't know why you're defensive about adding these standards; 
>they're good candidates.  
>I suspect Weinert3 will be problematic in single-winner elections,
>and somewhat problematic in multiwinner elections, since it runs
>counter to the proportionality standard.  As you've formulated it, 
>it's not about money.  Can it be reworded?

What I am trying to get at is a system that gives an extra boost to
candidates who are able to get lots of small donations (of time, money, or
other human resources) over those who have fewer such expressions of support.
 At first glance, this would seem to be a tautology related to voter support,
but not necessarily.  Ultimately, such a system would reward candidates who
are oriented toward "organizing", networking, and other community-building
efforts over ivory-tower intellectuals like us :-) or big money types who
have to buy friends.  

I'm at a loss for a pithy definition, other than something like "increasing
the advantage of  community builders".

-- K.D. Weinert

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list