Hot take behind a semi-veil of ignorance on this year’s results: I submit that next year, there should be a modest allocation (~10%) for the best finisher in certain categories if no org in that category makes the top three:
Last org standing in a major cause area grouping (i.e., GHW, AW, LT, meta/cross-cause/other)
Last small org standing (i.e., annual budget less than . . . 300K? 500K? 750K??)
If the main value of the election is eliciting / signaling community preferences, then I think it’s helpful to have good information available for each major cause area and also to signal-boost a small (usually upstart) org or two. Guaranteeing a modest pot of money for each sub-winner should improve the quality of the signal.
If the main value of the election is driving engagement, then I think it’s helpful to give (almost) everyone one race in which they are more invested in the outcome / feel like there’s an option to meaningfully support one org in their preferred cause area.
Hot take behind a semi-veil of ignorance on this year’s results: I submit that next year, there should be a modest allocation (~10%) for the best finisher in certain categories if no org in that category makes the top three:
Last org standing in a major cause area grouping (i.e., GHW, AW, LT, meta/cross-cause/other)
Last small org standing (i.e., annual budget less than . . . 300K? 500K? 750K??)
If the main value of the election is eliciting / signaling community preferences, then I think it’s helpful to have good information available for each major cause area and also to signal-boost a small (usually upstart) org or two. Guaranteeing a modest pot of money for each sub-winner should improve the quality of the signal.
If the main value of the election is driving engagement, then I think it’s helpful to give (almost) everyone one race in which they are more invested in the outcome / feel like there’s an option to meaningfully support one org in their preferred cause area.