[EM] Update on Mike Ossipoff
Donald E Davison
donald at mich.com
Tue Oct 19 01:30:57 PDT 1999
Greetings,
Tom Round wrote:
"I had this same debate back in 1995 with Mike Osippoff (sp?) [By the way,
where's Mike gone to?] on this same list, and while his arguments in favour
of Condorcet for referenda won me over, his advocacy of the Hare over the
Droop quota did not. I can dig my archived paragraphs out and re-post them
if anyone wants to see the arguments at length, but in a nutshell, it goes
along these lines:"
Dear Tom,
Thank you for posting your 10/15 letter a second time.
The year 1995 is before my time on this list. I would like to have
copies of both Mike-O's and your arguments at length over Hare vs Droop. I
would like to study both.
The spelling of Mike's last name has also been a problem to me. I
usually refer to him as Mike-O. His email address of late is no help: Mike
Ositoff <ntk at netcom.com>
Ositoff is not correct. The story he gave when he started to use this
spelling, is that when he was entering his correct name into his computer,
the computer froze at the time, giving him the bad spelling. He did not try
to correct the spelling because he did not want that to happen again.
`Ossipoff' was the spelling on his last post to me.(and we do not know if
that is correct.)
Maybe we should have a contest on the spelling of Mike's last name.
(maybe you are telling Tom more than he cares to know about Mike's name -
move on)
Mike's address is on the email loop of the USA Parliament group in
California. I sometimes post to that loop. The last time, I posted those 13
Tips for Activists, which I also posted to this list. Mike sent me some
comments, which I include below to bring everyone up to date on Mike.
(aren't you glad you asked)
Donald
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 18:37:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mike Ositoff <ntk at netcom.com>
Subject: Re: October Update - from New Democracy
To: Donald E Davison <donald at mich.com>
Hi--
Thanks for the quoted activism tips; they make sense. I've left
organizations because they failed in the ways that guy describes.
Also, I liked the alternative definitions of computer terms. I'd
add that, in principle, it would be possible that, when you go into
a store & ask for a monitor, the salesperson might put a 4-foot lizard
on the counter.
A guy walks into a computer store in the South, and asks to look at
the modems. The properietor places a modem on the counter, and asks
"You want mo' dem?"
[`more of them', for those of you who do not speak American]
***
I agree that no one wants to have to deal with all the issues at
all levels of govt. But even if we have current-style elected
representatives for that, the individual should still have the
_option_ of casting a vote on any issue at any level. That could
be accomplished by using an anonymous voter ID number when
voting by phone or by computer dial-in, etc. There are good ways
for voters to get their anonymous voter ID numbers. When they establish
that they're qualified to register, they could pick up a form, and
write a many-digit random number on it, and drop it into a big bin
with other people's numbers. Or they could take it when they leave,
write the number on it, and mail it in anonymously.
So if I decide to vote on some obscure issue, using my ID number,
my vote subtracts voting power from the representative whom I
voted for using the same anonymous ID number.
Additionally, a voter could designate 1 or more proxies, maybe
a whole ranking of them, so that, for any election or issue vote
that he doesn't vote on, his voting power would be added to that
of his proxy. If his 1st proxy didn't vote on that issue either,
then his voting power goes to his 2nd proxy. If he doesn't have
another, then he could authorize his voting power next going to
his proxy's proxy, and so on.
One could choose proxies to vote for him who specialize at various
different govt levels. In fact, at one extreme, of course this
system of proxies could be a way of choosing representatives for
school issues, garbage district issues, city, county, land use,
etc etc. That proxy extension of pure direct democracy could
replace conventional representative govt, in a seamless extension
of pure direct democracy.
I'm not saying that I _oppose_ the use of elected bodies for
some decisionmaking. But I'm just saying that the proxy approach
could accomplish that as an extension of pure direct democracy,
without the need to graft direct democracy (DD) with
a separate distinct representative system. Obviously it would amount
to pretty much the same thing in practice, but the proxy approach
is conceptually unitary.
Of course one's friends, family-members, or well-known or not
so well known political advisors could be in one's proxy ranking.
Garbage district proxsies could be somewhere near the bottom of
that list, &/or could be designated as proxies only for garbage issues.
Maybe on a ballot resembling current ones.
I'm not disagreeing with separate representative bodies; I'm
just suggesting something that would fit seamlessly with
DD. Just an alternative way of doing DD.
***
I suggest trying to interest some people in your area in a
municipal or state initiative for RWE, to replace current single-winner
methods. Of course it's easier at the municipal level--fewer people'
need to be convinced in order to get it started, and many fewer
signatures need to be collected.
[RWE stands for Run-Off Without Elimination]
***
Mike
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Marriage of Pure and Representative Direct Democracy - Donald
Dear Mike,
I like what you are saying when you wrote:
"But even if we have current-style elected representatives for that,
the individual should still have the _option_ of casting a vote on any
issue at any level. <snip>
So if I decide to vote on some obscure issue, using my ID number, my
vote subtracts voting power from the representative whom I voted for using
the same anonymous ID number." Mike,
Donald: But, instead of your vote merely being subtracted from your
representative's package of votes, I say, let us make your vote equal to
the vote of your representative, and it follows that the votes of anyone
else from your district who bothers to vote will also be equal to the votes
of you and your representative.
In other words we continue to have representatives, and these
representatives still do all the duties that they are currently doing,
except when it comes to voting they are to only have one vote added to the
votes that are sent in from their district.
I see the sequence of events of a Bill unfolding as follows:
1) When a new bill is deposited in the House, email notices are sent out to
all citizens who are interested in receiving these notices.
2) If a citizen is interested in this certain Bill, he request to be put on
the information list of this certain Bill.
3) An email copy of the complete Bill is sent to this citizen, plus all
future information, like minutes of committee hearings, etc.
4) When the time comes to vote on this Bill, authority to vote is sent to
only the citizens who have requested to be put on the information list of
this certain Bill.
The number of citizens of a single district who finally vote on this
Bill may be 100 or 1000 or 10,000, but even if it is only a few, those few
informed votes will be better than leaving the representation of the
district to only one vote.
The percentage breakdown of yes-no votes for each district is what
would be reported to the House.
Anyway, if more thinking is done on this, we may have something - we
may have the Marriage of Pure and Representative Direct Democracy.
****
On the subject of proxies, I do not like the proxy system because I
regard all proxies as uninformed votes.
I would be willing to have decisions made with less votes, as long as
all the votes are informed votes.
We should value each informed citizen because he adds to the sum total
of value of a decision, but all informed citizens are equal and none should
have the extra edge of extra votes.
The issue position of an informed citizen should not be allowed to be
transferable directly to other votes. The position should be required to go
through the minds of other citizens in order to reach other votes.
But, I did forward your letter to the list of the Cointinuing
International Committee on Direct Democracy. There are some in that group
that favor proxies, they should enjoy what you have to say about proxies.
Donald,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 13:21:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mike Ositoff <ntk at netcom.com>
Subject: Re: The Marriage of Pure and Representative Direct Democracy
To: Donald E Davison <donald at mich.com>
I'm printing out your message. But right now I just want to
say that the proxies would just be an individually-flexible
kind of representation. Sure it's, by definition, an uninformed
vote when someone turns their voting power over to a proxy--or to
a representative of any other kind.
I too prefer people voting for themselves, but, as you said, there'
will be minor issues, obscure issues, too many issues for everyone
to get involved in. And different people will take special interest
in & educate themselves on different issues.
Could you tell me how to join that international direct democracy
mailing list, & also how to read it without joining it, if that's
possible?
Mike
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
| Q U O T A T I O N |
| "Democracy is a beautiful thing, |
| except that part about letting just any old yokel vote." |
| - Age 10 |
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
N E W S L E T T E R
Worldwide Direct Democracy Newsletter
Four Issues per Year by Postal Mail
Cost per year: Czech Republic 200 Kc, Europe 12 DM
Outside of Europe $10
Make check payable to: Mr. Bohuslav Binka
Mail to: Mr. Bohuslav Binka
Bellova 15
Brno 623 00
Czech Republic
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
N E W D E M O C R A C Y
A Source of Study Material for Political Change
http://www.mich.com/~donald
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list