Home › Method › Interest: Sitting officeholders and Democratic and Republican party l…
Interest
Sitting officeholders and Democratic and Republican party leaders need to protect the advantage of incumbents and major parties. 0.50
| Measured by |
Validity ArgumentsInterest scoring →
Reasons to agree that this need is real and legitimate
| # | Reason (pattern) | Truth | Conf | Link | Imp | Uniq | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nothing here yet. Starter patterns: Basic need, Asks no transfer from others, Widely held, Recognized in law. | |||||||
Reasons to disagree
| # | Reason (pattern) | Truth | Conf | Link | Imp | Uniq | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nothing here yet. Starter patterns: Claim on others' property or choices, Held by few, Pretext for another aim, Already met. | |||||||
Total agree 0.00 · total disagree 0.00 · interest score 0.50
An interest is a need, stated so it can be argued: "[who] need [what]". Reasons here are about whether the need is real and legitimate, never about whether the belief is true and never about how many people hold it.
Check table
| 1 | If the belief is true, the measure should show | |
| 2 | If the belief is false, the measure should show | |
| 3 | Latest reading (with source) | |
| 4 | Basic test: do the two sides expect different readings? | No: both sides expect the same reading, so this interest is not at stake in the belief. |
| 5 | Computed validity | 0.50 from 0 reason(s) to agree and 0 to disagree |
The five steps, answered from the pages above. Only the one-sentence bridge and the bottom line are typed.
DefinitionsThe full explanation →
- Validity: this page's truth score. It says how legitimate the need is in general, on its own. How much it drives a position is a different number (the Driver page), and how negotiable it is belongs on the feasibility track. Power never weights validity.
- Measured by (row 4) is what a reading of this interest looks like; the readings in the check table say what each side expects to see if the belief is true or false. Content, not scores.
Where This Page Is Used
| Page | Table | As | Its truth |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ranked-choice voting produces better electoral outcomes than plurality voting. | interests | a row | 0.50 |
Every page that reads this one. One claim, one home, every use visible.
Scoring EngineTruth scores →
| Quantity | Value | How |
|---|---|---|
| Reasons to agree, total | 0.00 | sum of the agree side |
| Reasons to disagree, total | 0.00 | sum of the disagree side |
| Interest score | 0.50 | (agree + weight x starting point) / (agree + disagree + weight), starting point 0.50, weight 1.00 |
| ReasonRank | 0.0001 | how much of the site depends on this page: rank 1172 of 2173. The share of a walk that starts at the 162 beliefs and steps to the pages they read, with a 0.85 chance of stepping on each time |
| Work value | 0.0001 | ReasonRank x (1 - confidence): how much settling this page would be worth to everything above it |
| Completeness | no | at least one scored reason on each side (an importance page: at least one interest; an interest page: both readings filled) |
Cite this page Sitting officeholders and Democratic and Republican party leaders need to protect the advantage of incumbents and major parties. Idea Stock Exchange, interest page opponents-ranked-choice-voting, truth 0.50, confidence 0%, revision 42c8344 of 2026-10-04. The revision is what makes this quotable: these numbers move as the argument is worked on, and rebuilding that revision reproduces them exactly.
Every number on this page as data: opponents-ranked-choice-voting.json. Constants: K = 1 · UNARG = 0.5 · DEFLINK = 1 · DEFIMP = 0.5 · DEFUNIQ = 1. A reason placed under a conclusion is presumed relevant until a linkage page says otherwise; the burden is on the challenger. The neutral start for importance, the wiki's own rule.
Every value here is computed from the tables above at build time. Nothing is typed.