Using Environmental Problem-Solving relative weighing in Voting while considering similarities and differences of a person at the same time

Rick Simmons

9/19/2024

We can use environmental problem-solving relative weighing to get a more accurate representation weighing from validated voters.  If we consider the following factors-knowledge of the candidate (how much do you know about the candidate), knowledge of past, current, and future problems, your cumulative totality assessment, your contributions to the candidate, your ideas or funds, your energy allocation towards the candidate, and finally you niche roles, life experience, or your education.  The contributional significance is estimated and represents an adequate way of evaluating candidates by relatively assigning weights according to relative importance or significance.  Factor assessment is a “diversity” way of assessing yourself.  On the contrary, at the same time, a 100% vote could be similarly weighed at 25%, while the diversity weight equals 75% of the total weight of the vote.  In the following example (see Figure 1), you will notice that this person achieved 80% of the weight when you add the diversity (differences) vote with the similarities vote.

Figure 1.  The above chart shows an environmental problem-solving way of solving the voting problems on Earth.  The contributional significance is estimated as weights are allocated towards each factor.  The relative weights are calculated while a person enters their scores for each factor.  In the above example, this person scored 73% in the differences or diversity category as all the factors were evaluated to come up with a cumulative assessment.  At the same time, we can allocate 100% to a traditional vote that allocates 25% weight, so in the end, we can add up 75% of 73% of the diversity vote and 25% of the 100% similarity vote to come up with a total voting score of 80%.  In a voting scenario, this person gets 80% of the vote.  Keep in mind that it may be prudent to have a conference to determine the factors of contributional significance as it would be much more representative of everyone.  Maybe everyone could contribute.