This is the hybrid formula: it offers a combination of two formulas, the first of which is new. The first formula is simple: it provides everyone with a base of one whole vote. The other part of the formula, the ‘+ vote sizing’ part, refers to any of the other formulas that are up for grabs (probably ranging somewhere in between 0 and 1 – which means that the richest person gets 1 vote, the poorest 2, and everyone else is somewhere between 1 and 2).
Case Study: Electoral Oversight
The 1+x method gives us a good indication of how to provide oversight into how much skewing of the traditional results is going on with vote sizing changes in place. Whether or not we integrate the familiar one-vote-per-person way, we can still tally old-style results in the background to compare them to the vote sized outcome, thereby giving us a look at just how much of an impact the weighted votes have.
Who would be responsible for making sure that this oversight is put in place? As with all reforms derived from vote sizing (and all the case studies in this book), it would be in the hands of those with the most voice to lose if the votes are not added up correctly – the poorer and middle class people.
In addition, there is nothing to say that vote sizing has to be used all the time, in every election. Perhaps there are certain kinds of elections − like some referendums where the corrupting influence of wealth does not play a part (although I can’t think of any) − which would work better using the traditional one-person-one-vote method.Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 The Vote Sizing Institute's Corruption.Wiki (and Blog)