Excellent work, thank you.

Might be worth changing the first fix to “An Elector may spend any integer amount of their own Political Power to give that amount to another Elector”; as it is there’s the potential for an “I transfer 10,000,000 Power to Salviatore but only go down to 0” argument, while the paradigms of spending are set out in the appendix.

“An Elector may transfer any integer amount ”

does saying “any integer” that count as “otherwise specifying” that the amount has to be positive?

Also people don’t necessarily know their own political power. This could create problems if I go “I transfer 5 power to Pokes” and now Pokes thinks they have five more power, but turns out I didn’t have 5 power to give.

Transferring is also delineated in the appendix, in the same format as spending. I’ll change “integer amount” to “positive integer amount.”

Gah, right there in the same paragraph. Sorry, having kind of a dopey day over here.

We will need to elaborate on it a bit for situations where an Elector, due to not knowing how much Power they have, attempts to spend more than they have available. But that can be tidied up later.

Because the tiebreaker here makes everyone a Candidate right out of the gate.

[pokes] Does that cause any problems, though?

Hm, I saw that, thought “it probably causes problems that I hadn’t figured out yet”, but haven’t figured them out.

Heft of zero just means your votes count as 0, but it doesn’t change other candidates heft. So we don’t need to worry about “one person gets their mistrust down and is the only one with actual power”. So I think its safe?

whoops realized I forgot to