[EM] direct democracy / proxy system proposal

[Paul Kislanko]

Forgive me for not understanding, but what is the purpose? As a voter, it is
much harder for me to make a separate ranked list of proxies for each issue
than it is just to express my opinion for each issue.

-----Original Message-----
From: James Green-Armytage <jarmyta at antioch-college.edu>
To: election-methods-electorama.com at electorama.com
<election-methods-electorama.com at electorama.com>
Date: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 11:28 PM
Subject: [EM] direct democracy / proxy system proposal


>Dear election methods fans,
>
> Here is my proposal for a direct democracy system that incorporates a
>proxy system. Please let me know if I am repeating someone else's ideas.
>
> Each voter is able to have a standing list of proxies. The list can be
>ranked, although it is unlikely that any entries after the first one or
>two will be important. Voters can change their proxy list at any time, and
>they can also destroy it at any time and leave no substitute.
> On a given issue S, each voter has 3 options:
>
>1. Specifically vote on the issue. (This could include formally
>abstaining.)
>2. Indicate a specific proxies or ranked list of proxies, other than those
>indicated on their standing list, just for the purpose of their vote on
>issue S.
>3. Do nothing, in which case their voting power goes in the direction
>indicated by their standing proxy list (assuming that they have such a
>list on file).
>
> If a voter specifically votes on the issue, then of course their vote
>registers directly.
> If a voter indicates a new proxy list specifically for issue S, the
>effect for that issue is the same as if they had indicated their standing
>proxy list by default. In either case, a proxy list is indicated.
> If voter A indicates voter B as his first proxy, and voter B votes
>directly on the issue, then the weight of voter A's vote is added to voter
>B's and cast the same way.
> If voter A indicates voter B as his first proxy, voter B indicates voter
>C as her first proxy, and voter C votes directly on the issue, then both A
>and B's vote are cast as C's vote is cast. And so on.
> If voter A indicates voter B as his first proxy, and voter B makes no
>indication at all of his vote (that is, doesn't vote on the issue, doesn't
>indicate a proxy for the issue, and doesn't have a standing proxy list),
>then A's vote is transferred to the next proxy on his ranked list, instead
>of to B.
>
> A paradox might arise if A indicates B as his first proxy, B indicates C
>as her first proxy, and C indicates A as his first proxy.
> One (somewhat arbitrary) rule I have devised to resolve this is as
>follows:
> In the above case I would define a path such that A's vote has traveled
>the path A-->B, then the path B-->C, and then the path C-->A.
> The rule is that a vote should not travel along the same path twice.
>Hence, once A's vote returns to A, it should not once again move from A to
>B. Instead, it should travel to the next proxy as ranked on A's proxy
>list. The same will go for B and C's votes in this example.
> This rule is not especially important, since such paradoxes are not a
>serious concern, and other rules are possible. Still, one must have at
>least some rule to resolve this.
> Another possible rule is that a vote shouldn't be assigned to the same
>person twice. Hence in the example above A's vote would be transferred to
>C's next choice, rather than being assigned to A once again.
>
> As for the voting method used to decide the actual issue, that is left
>open here. For a single winner issue, I would tend to prefer beatpath or
>ranked pairs. For a multiple winner issue where proportional
>representation is appropriate, I would tend to prefer Meek STV, local
>CPO-STV or CPO-STV. Other methods are possible, though.
>
> The reason I think that it would be good to have a proxy system is that
>people will not necessarily have the time to become educated on a given
>issue, but perhaps they know of someone who might, and whose views they
>tend to agree with. And in turn, it is possible that this person won't
>have time to become educated on this particular issue, but knows someone
>who might, and so on.
> The reason I think that it would be good to allow people to allow
>different proxies for different issues is that it will enable people to
>indicate people who are knowledgeable in the field that the issue relates
>to. For example, if the issue is relevant to the environment, then the
>voter may indicate an environmentalist, or a staff member of an NGO that
>deals with the environment. Or the voter may just delegate her vote to
>someone whom she knows has educated themselves well about that issue in
>particular. Even though an average voter would not always be able to make
>these distinctions, their proxies and their proxies' proxies might.
>
> I do not intend to suggest that such a proxy system would make a
>legislature of elected representatives unnecessary. I think that it would
>serve as a complement rather than a replacement to representative
>government.
> Indeed, the official strength / bindingness of such a direct vote is left
>open, that is, whether it creates law in itself, whether it is subject to
>amendments, revisions, vetoes, etc. There might be many situations where
>it is attractive to have such a direct vote, but have it not be legally
>binding. That is, where the public are able to express their opinion
>actively (rather than through the use of randomly sampled polls, etc.),
>but the final decision is left to the traditional structures of
>government.
> Actually, this non-binding vote might be the best place to start from, in
>order to build public participation and trust before investing legal power
>in it.
>
> Of course, the communication medium that would support this process is a
>difficult problem, which is already under debate. The internet is the
>obvious choice, but then there is the issue of security, that is the worry
>that someone may be able to hack into the system and change the outcome of
>the vote. Also there is the issue of access, that is the fact that not
>everyone has equal access to the internet. However, if such problems are
>ever satisfactorily addressed, I hope that the resulting system of direct
>democracy will look something like the above.
>
>sincerely,
>James Green-Armytage
>
>----
>Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info