[EM] Thompson insurance like voting for a legislature

[raphfrk at netscape.net]

 The legislature would be made up of 
 
 - Sitting Legislators elected by some PR system
 - legislators who still have votes in their pool, but failed to get re-elected
 
 Both sets are allowed into the legislature and may vote (speaking rights
 may be different).
 
 At the start of each month and before the first session:
 
 - each legislator's total votes is reduced by 5% (rounded down)
 - each Sitting Legislator is allocated 50 extra votes.
 
 This gives an average of 1000 votes held per legislator and
 non-sitting legislators will eventually run out of votes and 
 even before that their influence will diminish.
 
 Voting occurs by
 
 - each legislator indicates for/against and how many votes they would like to cast
 
 One legislator is selected at random (weighted by number of votes held by
 each legislator before the vote) and that legislator's vote is canceled.
 Legislators may exclude themselves from this randomisation, unless they 
 all ask to be excluded.
 
 Legislators are then charged using the formula:
 
 L: Votes cast by the legislator
 A: Votes cast the same way as the legislator
 B: Votes cast the opposite way to the legislator
 N: some parameter ... say 2
 ^: the power of symbol
 
 L*(B^N)/(A^N+B^N)
 
 Rounding occurs upwards.
 
 The charge always works out at less or equal to what they voted.
   
 All legislators who vote the same way pay the same fraction of 
 of their votes.
 
 The legislators on the losing side are all given votes equal to the the number
 they voted as compensation.
 
 The excluded legislator gets to decide which side wins. However, he must pay
 any short fall and gets any surplus.
 
 As an example:
 
 5 voters
 
 A: 20 for
 B: 40 for
 C: 20 against
 D: 60 against
 E: 10 against
 
 E is randomly selected to be excluded
 
 Totals are:
 For: 60
 Against: 80
 
 Calculating the "For" side:
 
 fraction to be paid = (B^N)/(A^N+B^N)
 
 (80^2)/(80^20+60^2) = 0.64
 
 A pays 0.64*20 = 13
 B pays 0.64*40 = 26
 
 Calculating the "Against" side:
 
 fraction to be paid = (B^N)/(A^N+B^N)
 
 (60^2)/(80^20+60^2) = 0.36
 
 C pays 20*0.36 = 8
 D pays 80*0.36 = 29
 
 If E chooses to block the motion, the final totals including 
 compensation for the losers are:
 
 A gets 20-13 = 7
 B gets 40-26 = 14
 C pays = 8
 D pays = 29
 
 Total: 16 surplus
 
 E gets the 16
 
 If he chooses to pass the motion, the final totals including
 compensation for the losers are:
 
 A pays = 13
 B pays = 26
 C gets 20-8 = 12
 D gets 60-29 = 31
 
 Total: 4 deficit 
 
 E has to pay 4.
 
 Since E was against the motion, he isn't going to pay
 4 votes to pass it. The result is that the motion is 
 blocked.
 
 A similar process could probably be used to vote where there
 is 3 or more options.
 
 The system means that each legislator would not care which
 option E picks. If the legislator loses, the legislator receives
 compensation exactly equal to the value of the vote (assuming
 he was honest).
 
 The system depends somewhat on risk aversion and no serious
 agenda setting. For example, repeatedly trying to pass the 
 same motion would drain the opponents votes. However, that
 can be combated by allowing the motion to pass and then
 draining the supporters reserves by trying to repeal it. 
 
 Alternatively, a rule could be included that a bill that is 
 "essentially the same" cannot be voted on again until 
 a minimum time has passed.
 
 The formula for the fractions can be almost anything
 and doesn't have to be what I gave. It is supposed to
 represent the probability that the bill will pass/fail.
 
 
  Raphfrk
 --------------------
 Interesting site
 "what if anyone could modify the laws"
 
 www.wikocracy.com 
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20061107/851bbc35/attachment-0002.htm>