[EM] MultiGroup voting method

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 06:01 AM 4/7/2007, Juho wrote:
>>it is an imposed system that the party names are on the ballot at all
>
>That could also be called "information"

It is one particular kind of information, one which provides 
information about candidates affiliated with a party and no 
information about candidates not. Some ballots provide that the 
occupation of the candidate shall be on the ballot. Which if course 
allows the incumbent to state that he or she is the incumbent....

If you allow one kind of information, you favor candidates who look 
good to the voter in the light of that information. It introduces a 
bias to provide one or two bits of information, I've never seen more than that.

The pieces of information I've desscribed -- party and occupation -- 
favor party affliates and incumbents. Big surprise!

>One difference is that in MultiGroup the declared associations to
>different groups are used in determining which candidates will be
>(proportionally!) elected.

What this must mean is that, effectively, the voting is for "groups" 
rather than for candidates..... which in my view is the exact 
opposite of what we need....

>Note that to some extent grass always looks greener at the other side
>of the fence. Current political systems may not work optimally. But
>also future and alternative political systems are subject to
>corruption.

The claim is made. The proof is actually lacking. Delegable proxy, 
well implemented in a society which has learned how to use it, would 
be highly corruption-resistant. Essentially, there aren't any 
critical nodes to target. The obvious targets are high-level proxies, 
but high-level proxies can lose their power in a flash if their 
clients smell a rat. So the high-level proxies, who are generally 
proxies for quite sophisticated clients, have to be able to convince 
their clients that the proposed action (which is actually the product 
of bribery of the proxy) is the best action. Now, if these arguments 
exist, the corruption isn't necessary!

>  Continuous efforts are needed to keep the system working.

Well, sure. But how *much* effort? It's possible that a system could 
be designed that would take little effort to maintain. That, indeed, 
is the point of DP, it distributes the communication and oversight load.

>Sometimes it is better to change an old system to a new one, but
>often it is also enough just to remove whatever rotten apples there
>are and find ways how to avoid such problems to emerge repeatedly in
>the future.

More often, it is all blamed on the "rotten apples" and the remedy is 
limited to tossing them out, to be replaced by more rotting 
apples.... until the system changes, the stone will continue to roll 
back down the hill.

However, the DP revolution doesn't have to "change the old system." 
It supplements it, watches it, uses it. *It does not take changes in 
the laws to radically revolutionize politics. Nor does it take 
massive efforts and vast sums of money. What it does take is for 
enough people to realize the nature of the problem and what, in that 
light, actually becomes a very obvious solution....

We aren't using what we already know.