I'm a bit confused on why points are weighted so heavily in the candidate scores.
Candidate scores are used as indicator's for people to help evaluate the proficiency of the proposed candidate.

[![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/yba1m.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/yba1m.png) 

Reputation counts for 1/2 of the candidate score, While moderation and editing only count for the first time badge occurrence. IMO this seems like a poor way to evaluate candidates.

While reputation is definitely important, should it really be the primary indicator of whether someone is a worthy candidate?

Shouldn't we be valuing edits and moderation task more than we do the score? Some metrics I believe would be more important to the election.

```
#edits
#reviews
#flag-raised
#numberHelpfulCloseVotes

```

Let's look at an extreme case, to depict the underlying nature of our elections:

If a user had 20k in reputation and has done edited 80 posts and raised 80 flags (the minimum for being a valid candidate)

Will get a candidate score of 23 (20 for reputation, 3 points for mandatory badges).

While a user with 3k, 20k in edits, 20k in reviews, 20k helpful flags raised, 20k in close votes, 1k wiki-edits, would only be able to tie the previous candidate score if they have every badge.

How does reputation accurately reflection ones ability to moderate? 

My question is shouldn't we as a community value moderation tasks more than we view reputation.