[EM] Mae West was interested in voting methods?

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 09:26 AM 4/2/2007, Howard Swerdfeger wrote:


>Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>>Perhaps it might be time to recognize that the system creates bums? 
>>We could imagine that all these people are just bad people, greedy 
>>for power, who want to dominate others or to enrich themselves, and 
>>then we become justified in all sorts of destructive actions to get 
>>rid of these parasites.
>
>I agree, the structure of government, makes the people in government not
>want to change it. I was not trying to imply that changing the people in
>  power would a difference. I agree less when you speak of "destructive
>actions" if you include violent.

Sorry, perhaps my syntax was too convoluted. I was describing the 
imagination that is behind destructive revolutions, certainly not 
advocating them!

>I generally believe that we can change the power structures of world
>with non violent methods, it will just take a long time, and we will
>have to start small.

I agree with the small. It can start with two or three people. 
However, if the "start" proceeds along traditional reform lines, 
which generally either fail miserably or succeed in reproducing the 
system with new faces and differences which are more apparent, at 
best, than real, then it's pushing the rock up the hill.

As to taking a long time, not necessarily. Depends. As you may know, 
I have a specific plan, and, so far, it is roughly on track. The plan 
is to first disseminate the vision, which involves knowledge of the 
problem and a solution which looks very good theoretically (for those 
who bother to examine it in depth), and this starts with one person, 
me. As well as some others who have independently come up with 
similar ideas, in this or that aspect. (Generally, though, these 
other initiatives have missed the FA component, which is what can, 
theoretically, take all this from pie in the sky to pie on the table.)

The plan is already beyond that core seed stage. There are now a few 
people, though not enough yet to create critical mass, the point 
where the effort takes on an appearance of some level of success and 
public validation, and entry into the advocacy group starts to 
accelerate. Each of us, and especially me, is limited in what we can 
do, but when we begin to act coherently, our influence multiplies, it 
does not merely add.

There are two paths to implementation, that is, a straight and 
relatively predictable (and relatively slow, though not necessarily 
all that slow) path, and a shortcut. We are looking for the entry 
points for the shortcut, but, so far, they are effectively blocked by 
the persistence of inequities effect. The shortcut is for an 
already-grown or influential organization to take up the plan and 
either convert to it or set up the kind of parallel organizations 
that we see, the FAs alongside traditional organizations. They 
supplement each other. FAs are *not* competition for resources, 
including volunteer time, except to a trivial degree.

But if you are in a position of influence in some existing 
organization, and you come across FA/DP, it is going to look bizarre 
and unnecessary. It takes some special experience or insight to see 
beyond this, and the necessary combination is rare. So far. The 
shortcut could still open, particularly if someone who understands 
FA/DP is known and trusted by someone who has influence. Indeed, this 
kind of pathway is exactly what FA/DP attempts to set up. These 
pathways already exist, but they are chaotic, in too restricted a 
way. We want *everyone* to have a trusted path to power and influence.

(The pathway is not a clear channel, it is filtered. But it is 
filtered by those who are trusted both from the top and the bottom. 
If my idea is going to be rejected, at least it will be rejected by 
someone I trust, and I might learn something. Maybe next time.....)

>>But, in fact, the problem is the system. And who is to blame for the system?
>
>This is a complex problem, generally I say the people most to blame
>would be the people who were in power at the time the "system" was
>created.

They did the best they knew. They were not perfect. It could even be 
argued that they, simply, could not have done better. Maybe the world 
was not ready for "better."

So what are we to do, hang the Founding Fathers in effigy?

>  But since our various world power structures more evolved then
>were designed I would say that there are lots of people to blame, again
>mostly the ones who were in power.

I'd say that this view is basically wrong. The "people in power" have 
limited choices. They are pawns of the system almost as much as those 
at the bottom. If you focus on blaming them, you will be diverted 
from the true causes of our limitations.

Consider it this way: Who was to blame for early organisms not having 
a nervous system? Not the cellular machinery that kept pumping out 
messenger proteins and the like! -- which is how cells influenced 
each others behavior before nervous systems. Actually, nervous 
systems aren't different, except that very specialized messaging 
developed that connected almost directly instead of depending on diffusion.

The people in power are definitely responsible for the decisions that 
they make, but those decisions take place within a limited universe 
of possibilities. If they are not aware of alternatives, are they to 
blame for not promoting them?

No, those who are aware *might* be to blame for not informing them. 
But the system makes this difficult.

We all have filtering systems and procedures that protect us from 
information overload. We can't consider every idea that pops up. At 
least most of us can't, and those who can may need drugs to survive!

One person working on a software system that resembles DP calls 
people "lemmings." He's not entirely incorrect, where he really goes 
astray is in thinking that this is morally reprenhensible. He does 
not see how it is functional, and it is. He's a lemming himself, just 
about different things.

It is difficult to promote FA/DP because it is different from 
traditional thinking in more than one way. It does what is supposed 
to be impossible -- direct democracy on a large scale -- and it 
changes society by taking no positions about change. It also provides 
a path out of the corrupt mess that we're in, and most people are 
thoroughly cynical and in despair about actually managing to fix 
this. And they don't want the pain of false hope, which many of them 
have experienced numerous times.

So I don't blame those who refuse to listen to me. They are just 
functioning the way that they came to function. It's not wrong, their 
function, merely a difficulty to be overcome. It can be overcome with 
time. I've seen people shift after the lapse of time, even where 
there was no communication about the idea in the interim. Somehow, 
perhaps, it cooks inside.

Further, if they hear about it a year later, it starts to take on 
some color of permanence, of maybe having more substance than the 
latest raving of some manic person who is so arrogant as to think he 
understands the world better than others.

If he's so smart, why isn't he rich?

>>We could look at who created it. Hundreds of years ago or more. 
>>Should be blame them? Useful, it avoids all responsibility. Perhaps 
>>we could burn them in effigy.
>
>you keep saying blame avoids responsibility. I don't think this is true
>by determining the cause of a problem (Blame), you better understand the
>problem, and are better able to fix (take responsibility for) the
>problem. You can still fix a problem that you are not to blame for.

Actually, it's quite difficult. If I'm to blame for a problem, then 
fixing it involves changing myself. If someone else is to blame, then 
fixing it involves changing someone else. I can continue without 
change. Which of these is easier?

They are both difficult, but in different ways. Trying to change the 
world by changing others is actually same-old, same-old. It 
perpetuates the problem. Trying to change oneself can be 
psychologically difficult, but it has rewards, even if the world 
doesn't change. And it does not harm the world, and, just maybe ....

Just changing myself is not enough, in spite of a few decades of 
oovy-groovy propaganda. I need to work with others who make the same 
shift. Together, we *can* change the world. Individually, though,

If we want to change the world, it has to be easy.

>>Or we could look at those who *allow* the system to continue. And 
>>I'm afraid, Mr. Swerdfeger, that this is *us*.
>
>The more you ask people to risk the fewer you will have to follow your
>cause. I generally would advocate modest slow structural change to rapid
>revolution.

I'm advocating *no* structural change. I'm advocating the addition of 
something. It already exists, but in chaotic form, it is unreliable. 
It is the networking that generates what might be called social 
intelligence, the super-intelligence of a functioning group.

Yes, when intelligence is introduced, the system will change, but not 
in ways that can be predicted in the absence of group intelligence. 
Individually, we come up with our best, and it is not good enough....

I'm asking people to risk nothing but disappointment, and if I were 
asking them to invest major time and effort, that would be enough as 
a disincentive. But I'm not asking that. We don't need that! We need, 
right now, some understanding and a willingness to connect. Not a 
broad, open connection that will overwhelm us with traffic, with more 
things to do, more busyness and overload, just a simple connection 
that might create a tiny amount of traffic.

>>There are some of us, many, in fact, who are working on this or 
>>that symptom of the problem. It's like pushing the rock up the 
>>hill. While the symptoms must be addressed -- people are dying or 
>>living in oppression and harm because of them -- if that's all we 
>>do, we are doomed to forever struggling against problems that could 
>>easily be avoided.
>
>Here I dis agree, I see the world as slowly getting better, its 
>getting better all the time. it is hard work, there are setbacks. 
>but fundamentally there is less oppression today then 100-200 years ago.

Of course the world is getting better. It was getting better before 
the development of nervous systems. We can have better and better 
chemical messengers, more sophisticated chemical messaging, more 
effective cellular structures, and on and on. I'm not entirely sure 
there is less oppression today than 100 years ago. In some places, it 
is far worse. Modern technology has brought severe oppression, to the 
point of genocide, to places it could not reach before. My daughter 
is from such a place. I've been there. And I've seen, a bit, the 
machine beginning to crush these people.

Is it better? For some, not for others.

By all means, Mr. Swerfeger, continue your "hard work." If you like. 
But it is not hard work, actually, that is going to change the world. 
It is intelligent work, in cooperation with others, efficiently coordinated.

My therapist, half-jokingly, used to say that the standard of success 
in therapy was that the client was working less and making more money.

Work smarter, not harder. But, still, if you like "hard," great. You 
could be useful, or you could be doing more harm than good. We aren't 
going to stop you.

>>By the development of a broad understanding, among a few people, of 
>>what the *real* problem is. I have my own opinions about that, but 
>>what I see is that even the question is rarely asked. I want it to 
>>be asked, so I'm asking it, and I only give my answers as one 
>>attempt. Without understanding the problem, we will never solve it, 
>>unless somehow by chance, random combination, a solution arises. 
>>Could happen, given a billion years.
>
>I would disagree, what is needed to change the world is an 
>understanding by the people of the world. not "a few people"

Understanding of this kind starts with a few. Obviously, there needs 
to be something broader, to change the overall system, but where does 
it start? How do ideas propagate?

Here is what I see as happening over and over again. A few people 
come up with an analysis of the situation, generally of who is to 
blame for it, and they package their ideas so that they have broad, 
immediate appeal. Not depth, appeal. By forming a channel for the 
stored anger of people, they gain energy and are able to reach into 
power. And then they destroy those they consider responsible. And 
then become them for the next generation.

No, we need to start with the best analysis of the situation that we 
can find, and it has to go far deeper than blame. Blame is 
*generally* a device for relieving discomfort by settling 
responsibility on others. It is one of the less functional of the 
common psychological devices, it does tremendous harm when one is, 
for example, working with children. Blame the child is the old 
pedagogy. Blame the parents replaced it, doing about as much harm.

>>Okay, the problem is that the people aren't organized. Obviously, 
>>I'm not the first person to think of this! However, usually what 
>>happens is that those who realize this then proceed to organize the 
>>people, using traditional organizational methods.
>
>So, well I just have to say I don't agree.

Don't agree with what?

>I see many highly organized efficient people and groups every day.
>they are often just organized against each other.

If anyone could consider this efficient, well, they have a very 
strange idea of "efficient."

As a thought experiment, suppose that there are two groups of people, 
one of which wants to prohibit A, and the other wants to encourage 
it. They both work very hard advocating their position, and each 
group spends tremendous sums. If we assume that the position will 
prevail which puts in the most effort and spends the most money, 
unless the amounts are close enough that actual wisdom prevails -- 
maybe this is true -- then most of this vast effort was wasted. What 
if the two groups each were part of a larger organization, though 
still independent. What if somehow they could agree on "arms 
reduction." I.e., each of them reduces its efforts and expenditures 
in a way that matches the other group. Suppose this were possible.

Wouldn't advocacy become more efficient? Wouldn't it take less effort 
to make decisions as a society? *And this would not change the 
balance of power.* It would not take a weak group and make it 
predominant, and it would not take a strong group and make it weak. 
The reduction would be to mutual benefit.

(I'm fully aware of a whole series of objections which could be 
raised to this plan. The idea of competing groups cooperating seems 
ludicrous to most of us. What about betrayal, where two groups agree 
to reduce their efforts, but then one of them goes ahead and puts the 
additional effort into it. (While you can't do much about volunteer 
effort, nor would I want to, the principle I'm suggesting applies to 
all efforts, not just to the expenditure of money. It's possible, in 
that confined realm, to reduce spending in an enforceable way -- and 
the enforcement isn't punishment, it is merely preventing violation 
of the agreement by sequestering funds. The agreement is of fixed 
reductions -- or possibly agreed-upon proportional reductions -- for 
a specific period.)

In the FA/DP concept, competing groups, which we call caucuses, have 
the right of independent action. The FA/DP organization itself 
doesn't take controversial positions, but caucuses certainly can and 
will. However, the overall structure is designed to encourage (but 
not require) communication between factions, the DP structure makes 
this practically duck soup. Further, the DP structure makes it 
possible for highly concentrated representation to allow every 
faction (not just two!) to be represented in negotiations. 
Classically, consensus process has been considered to be far to 
cumbersome and time-consuming, but that's not true in small groups. 
I've seen thoroughly polarized groups, not-over-my-dead-body kind of 
polarization, turn into total agreement, when enough communication 
had taken place. Won't always happen, but doesn't have to be always 
to be highly beneficial.

Mr. Swerdfeger is mistaking efficiency in advocacy of a cause for 
efficiency in decision-making. Decision-making is an overall social 
function, and advocacy, *especially if one side is more efficient 
than another, without being more wise*, can contaminate it. 
Efficiency in decision-making would require all reasonable points of 
view and knowledge to be on the table, whereas advocacy groups will 
often try to exclude opposing positions from consideration. Right 
now, we see IRV advocates attempting to prevent alternate and clearly 
better methods from even being considered. Originally, it was by 
totally ignoring the existence of such methods, but that strategy has 
been crumbling, so now it is by presenting misleading arguments to 
discredit other methods and those who propose them, while at the same 
time attempting to gloss over IRV problems that are obvious to anyone 
who actually studies the method and compares it with alternatives.

On the other side, we see at least one Range advocate who attempted 
to discredit IRV by pointing to the checkered past of one IRV 
advocate. Totally irrelevant, but this kind of action is not uncommon 
in politics. Fortunately, the CRV majority does not tolerate this 
kind of argument, and is quite willing to discuss problems with Range 
Voting, even though CRV is an advocacy organization. Center *for* 
Range Voting. But the Range Voting Free Association, a tiny FA/DP 
organization is *about* Range Voting, not for it. Interested in Range 
Voting? Even if only to shoot it down? You really should join. Register at
http://rv.beyondpolitics.org and, when you feel ready, name a proxy, 
if there is someone active you generally trust.

>At this point you launched into a rant about "proxy democracy", 
>"AA", and "Free Association". I am not prepared for a lengthy debate 
>on any of these topics, but I will give some small response.

One man's rant is anothers impenetrable tome and anothers cogent and 
thorough examination of relevant issues. I'm not surprised that Mr. 
Swerdlinger thinks this a rant, it makes sense to me from the rest of 
what he's written.

>1.)
>I became aware of proxy democracy over a year ago. I find it 
>interesting from a intellectual standpoint. I think it could make a 
>fine democratic system. However, I do not believe the the people of 
>the world are anywhere near ready to implement/accept such a system.

Obviously not. But that's not the question. Are two or three people 
ready? Are ten people ready? Are there one hundred people in the 
world ready? I'd be utterly astonished if there were not. From the 
small sample of people who I've communicated with about this, there 
is now one other person who is totally qualified to speak on behalf 
of it, he's as good or better than I. There are others who have taken 
on helping in this way or that. Mr. Swerdlinger may not realize it, 
but he is also helping, by occasioning discussion of it.

>  I think it would be most useful to medium to large size groups or 
> organizations for now. In the mean time I feel no obligation to 
> promote "proxy democracy" as I am most interested in democratic 
> reform at the provincial/Country level, and I feel "proxy 
> democracy" will not achievable or acceptable to the people for many 
> many years, with many changes to our democracy between now and 
> then. I prefer to focus on the next evolutionary step.

What Mr. Swerdlinger has overlooked is that any reform movement must 
be organized to be effective. And I'd propose as a general law that a 
reform movement, if successful, ultimately imposes its own structure 
on society. That is why the disciplined organizations necessary to 
lead violent revolutions have always led to repressive dictatorships. 
They started that way, though it wasn't visible, necessary, to them, 
because they had a common cause and they agreed to suppress 
differences in order to be more effective. They created centralized 
command structures, which, then, of course, continued in power if 
they were successful. These command structures may have been 
initially consensus-driven within a small group, but once the reins 
of power were in their hands, power struggles ensued inevitably and 
the result was Stalinism, Maoism, and more.

It's my suggestion that FA/DP, as an organizational communications 
structure, is the most efficient *and* most intelligent structure of 
anything known or on the table. So reform movements which adopt it, I 
expect, will be more successful. And they will not then suffer the 
fate of reform movements with more traditional organization.

How can FA/DP accomplish this? It does it by building robust 
communications networks, extremely difficult to corrupt or attack. 
FA/DP does not create an attractive targets for corruption or 
interdiction, and most establishments, in my opinion, won't consider 
it a threat. It is not directly opposing them. In any country which 
is at least marginally a democracy, or the government believes that 
it really represents the people, it would be pretty difficult to 
argue against individuals communicating with each other about how to 
better serve their country! Only those who are cynical opportunists, 
only out for their own power, would recognize FA/DP as possibly being 
inimical to their interests, and most of those in control in places 
like China are not that. Rather, they believe that their opinions are the best.

And, of course, the FA/DP structure is totally open to those opinions 
and they will receive full consideration and the best opportunity to 
be voluntarily accepted by the people.

This is, of course, theory and could be completely wrong. We won't 
know until it's tried.

We *can* however, try right here, right now, with a subject of 
interest to us. And if you want to start a reform organization, by 
all means; what I suggest is that you form a metagroup at the same 
time, to advise your organization. Not to control it, to advise it. 
Do you really want to know what the people want, or at least what 
those interested in your topic want? Do you think that your own ideas 
are so good that the entire body of interested people couldn't come 
up with something better?

FA/DP sets the stage for its own successor, if there is to be one. It 
is totally open, and this would be a hazard if it were not for 
certain mechanisms which are inherent in the FA/DP structure.

And if you simply want to focus on your own reform efforts, fine. 
What you will have, if you name a proxy, is a link to the 
metastructure that is the FA/DP organization, who will inform you if 
he or she thinks there is something you should know, and who will be 
your link to higher levels if you think you have something you want 
to share or coordinate. If the FA/DP organization is still small, you 
don't have to use your proxy, you can directly, for example, send a 
message to the top level mailing list or whatever communications 
mechanism is being used. Right now, for example, the RVFA is using 
the CRV mailing list. Why not? But it can set up its own if there is 
ever a need. If the FA gets large, though, having that proxy in place 
could be important.

>2.)
>To the best of my knowledge "AA" is a fine organization, that does a 
>lot of good work. I have some knowledge of the 12 steps, and the 
>organizations funding model.
>I also strongly support the funding model they use, as one of the 
>only legitimate funding models, to maintain legitimacy with its members.

Yup. Mr. Swerdfeger got that part. It is, by the way, one of the more 
difficult points to get across, because most people *aren't* familiar 
with it. Any FA depends totally on its members for continued support, 
it cannot become an independent power structure, where a few people 
control the resources of many, without actually having the consent 
and consensus of many. The latter is standard in traditional 
organizations. They start, if they start small and informally, as 
FAs, but as soon as they organize, they set up traditional power 
structures which have this effect. It's not visible at first, because 
the early membership is highly united. It becomes visible later, when 
it's too late to undo the damage. Usually, at least.

>3.)
>I have not heard of this "Free Association" you speak about, until I 
>joined this list (1-2 months ago). What I gather by lurking on the 
>list, Is very little about what "Free Association" is, or what it 
>bring to "proxy democracy". even in the rant you just gave. I have a 
>hard time understanding what it is or what it does.

A Free Association is an organization which has adopted the AA 
Traditions and Concepts as they apply to general purposes. If you 
know how AA maintains that "legitimacy," you know, then, how an FA will do it.

AA did not need DP to get pretty close to the same result, because of 
two reasons: first of all, it has a very narrow focus, and members 
are generally highly involved. They *do* go to meetings, most of 
them, or they aren't really considered members except quite 
peripherally. (They are still members in the sense that if they show 
up, they will be treated as members. But, then again, anyone is, who 
claims to have a "desire to stop drinking."

On the rare occasions that I spoke at AA meetings, I always got a 
laugh by saying that I qualified as a member because "I wanted to 
stop drinking.... Your drinking." (Normally non-alcoholics don't 
speak at AA meetings, but there are some meetings where everyone 
introduces themselves and I've felt free to go to open meetings. And 
once I was asked to speak at a meeting that I'd attended quite a few 
times. And, yes, they knew that I was not an alcoholic, but I was 
going to talk about how the Steps had helped me, which they did. And 
about what? None of your business!"

(I think most people have some area of their life which could benefit 
from the kind of process that takes place in AA. But that is entirely 
another matter, it's just an opinion. The Traditions and Concepts 
were written by Bill W. from a study of the history of organizations 
and, while he focused on temperance organizations, his findings were, 
in fact, quite general in application....)

Secondly, AA did put in place a delegate structure which, by using 
supermajorities to elect delegates sought to represent consensus, 
and, at the same time, when a supermajority could not be obtained in 
a reasonable time, used random choice from among the top two. As is 
well known, this kind of random process will produce a rough 
proportional representation. So AA representation to the top level is 
quite good, without DP.

One might think that Bill W. would have thought of DP because he was 
experienced with corporation proxies, AA was actually founded when he 
was on a visit to a city to exercise proxies. But he didn't, apparently.

DP is what theoretically should allow consensus to develop in the 
FAs, rapidly and efficiently, and where consensus is possible, the 
power of the FA *members* can then be applied toward actual social 
effect. All without the FA itself ever taking a position. The most it 
does is to estimate consensus through polls (expanded, we assume, 
using the proxy lists), which should be an indication of what the 
individual members would actually support. So before any advocacy 
effort takes place, ideally, a consensus has developed, and there are 
natural leaders of this consensus who can coordinate its 
implementation. Nothing prevents a competing caucus from similarly 
acting, except that if the result is a foregone conclusion, based on 
the competing caucus's own analysis of poll results -- it need not 
depend on a possibly corruptible central structure -- it can avoid 
wasting its own time and resources tilting with windmills. It has 
already expressed its dissent, as thoroughly as possible, in the 
FA/DP process, there will be a record of it for the future, and they 
can point back, if they were right, and say "I told you so."

>I also wish you good luck in your endeavours to implement your FA/DP.

Thanks.

>>There are obvious applications right here in River City. Anyone 
>>want to propose one?
>
>I do not live in any city by that name or nickname.
>but my city does have 2 rivers and a canal, and a man made lake.

Sure you do. "Right here in River City" is slang for "Right here." 
It's a phrase from a musical comedy, the Music Man. The claim is made 
that Mason City, Iowa, was unmistakably used by Meredith Wilson as 
the setting for the musical. The phrase is used to indicate a problem 
that we might think only exists elsewhere exists here as well. I'm 
turning that upside down to indicate a *solution* that we can 
implement right here.

But it won't work if it is me alone. If anyone else is willing to 
take the initiative, I'll certainly help, for starters I could 
provide a wiki and the associated registration facility. I've done 
this alone in the past, too many times. From my point of view, an 
organization doesn't exist until there are at least two people! And 
Jan Kok is already overcommitted. Bill W. considered the founding of 
AA to have taken place when there were two people helping each other. 
Not when he himself got sober and realized he needed help to stay 
that way. (He had noticed that he was able to stay sober when he was 
helping others to get sober and to stay that way.)