I’d put 1 and 2 right back in. It ain’t broke
The richest person can not be X times richer than poorest person.
Choose the X value wisely. Mine is 1000.
Very hard to define this rule. Money in the bank? Collective value of possessions? Value of those possessions set by whom and to what standard? What about rich people not owning much but having everything in their company, non profit, etc.
That’s why writing laws is hard. But you get the intention: limit wealth inequality.
The voting system will be the Tideman method
While Ranked Pairs sound good in theory, how would you actually sell this method to normal people? Transparency is one of the basic requirements for the acceptability of a vote, and this method will be beyond maybe 70-80% of the American public, if not more.
I don’t think using ignorant Americans as a policy standard is going to achieve anything.
Well, a lot of them don’t really understand the current system either.
What is important is how are you, as a voter, gonna vote for the person you want to win. In the end, it’s either choose one or rank them from top to bottom.
What could be the problem is tallying several million individual votes, let alone putting them into a computer. I wonder what the algorithmic complexity is for this system.
