Recommend a leader
Putting somebody forward
You need three things:
- Who. Name, and what they are running for or might run for.
- Why. In your own words. The most useful reasons are specific: a position they have argued for at length, a thing they built, a fight they took that cost them something.
- A source. Something they actually said or did, that a stranger can go read or watch.
You do not need an account to begin. If you are not signed in, the control still renders normally, the click takes you to sign up, and you land back where you were with your work intact. It is an invitation, not a wall.
What makes a recommendation strong
A long interview beats an endorsement. We can assess an hour of somebody answering questions. We cannot assess a list of people who like them.
A channel beats a clip. Pointing us at where a person regularly speaks at length is the single most useful contribution to a thin record.
A commitment beats an adjective. "Said he would sponsor a bill forcing production by a date" is checkable. "Principled" is not.
Flagging a worrisome challenger
The mirror action exists and it is held to a much higher bar, because it is a negative public claim about a living person. Sources are mandatory, one submission is never enough to publish a flag, and the record states what the person did or said rather than what they are.
The movement will publish a flag when the record supports it. It will not publish a suspicion.
What you get for it
Recommending, vetting, adding a channel, adding a video, and recruiting a challenger are all logged actions with karma attached — with the weight rising sharply as the contribution gets harder to fake.