[EM] (no subject)

[Curt Siffert]

Mike, sounds like we agree that there would be a "market" for 
"super-proxies" that would have a lot of voters choosing to use them 
for voting.

It also sounds like we agree that these voting issues will need a lot 
of hashing out in terms of finding amendments, and coalitions, etc.

The problem with a pure proxy setup, however, is that there is a 
disincentive for anyone to adopt the duties of a super-proxy.  Time, 
and financial opportunity cost.  If it's all purely ad-hoc, then it 
means that someone becoming a proxy would not be compensated for it.  
The only people with the resources to become a proxy are the ones that 
are already employed in a very similar market as their interest group, 
or people that are independently wealthy, etc.

Since there is a disincentive for everyone to vote on every little 
issue, and there's also a disincentive towards becoming an even more 
occupied proxy, I do not visualize how this would scale.

So while the proxy system and the Direct Representation system are 
otherwise similar, it's part of why I like the Direct Representation 
system - it's a set number of n members in the legislative body, all of 
which have staff - government positions - and will therefore have the 
resources to do the necessary legislative work to go from step 1 of 
representation to step 2 of consensus building.

On May 14, 2004, at 6:01 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:

> You wrote:
>
> I like that, but one thing that strikes me about it is that it would
> still require a person to make a judgment on every issue - whether they
> want to keep their proxy, or vote directly, or switch their proxy, etc.
>
> I reply:
>
> Yes, now we have no such decision to make, and so we get to let our 
> "representatives" make all the decisions for us. I claim that it would 
> be good to be allowed to make that decision. And we needn't make that 
> decision on every issue. We could make a blanket decision to leave all 
> of up to our proxy(ies). Or we could vote only on the most important 
> and controversial issues, such as the war against Iraq, at its 
> inception, or at its occupation stage.
>
> By the way, though ordinary the ballot should be secret, anyone voting 
> in favor of a war should have to accompany that vote with infantry 
> enlistment and a binding, irrevocable promise to fight in that war, 
> with his/turn in combat to be in the same order as his/her vote for 
> the war. War advocacy votes from people unqualified for combat 
> wouldn't count. Anyone could vote against a war.
>
> You continued:
>
> People like to categorize, and many like to go the
> forest-instead-of-the-trees route.  Many would rather just feel like
> someone is doing a good job at representing their interests.
>
> I reply:
>
> Good, and such a person could make a blanket choice to just leave it 
> up to hir proxy.
>
> You continued:
>
> From that, what would probably happen is that some proxies would end up
> amassing a huge number of voters.
>
> I reply:
>
> Good. The people have spoken.
>
> You continued:
>
> The other thing is - if everything is merely voted on, how are the
> bills revised and hashed out?  Who does that?
>
> I reply:
>
> The automated system would continually be receiving initiative 
> proposals and qualifying votes for them, 24 hours a day, every day. 
> Anyone could propose a counterproposal or amended proposal to any 
> proposal. Such a counterproposal or amended proposal would be labeled 
> as such by the proposser, and eventually the original proposal and all 
> the counterproposals and amensded proposals woudl be voted on in one 
> big multi-alternative election, in which one alternative would be 
> "status-quo".
>
> There could be procedural proposals, "motions", including the linking 
> of several similar proposals for one multil-alternative election.
>
> A voter could filter out all proposal other than those by certain 
> names. Or could use a sophisitcated search system to find proposals of 
> a certain description, or a combination of description and proponent 
> name.
>
> A system similar or the same as Robert's Rules could be used for 
> procedural matters. Anything that can be done in a meeting coud be 
> done in this Internet/telepoll system. Yes, some things would have to 
> be done differently due to the greater number of participants.
>
> You continued:
>
> All this points me back to the idea that I'm still really quite
> intrigued about - Direct Representation.  The one over on Dave
> Robinson's site.  You still have your representatives, but there's a
> direct link rather than a geographical one.
>
> I reply:
>
> But that's exactly how it is in the proxy system.
>
> You continued:
>
> That means those interest
> groups that are significant nationwide but always in the minority in a
> locality (atheism comes most quickly to mind) have representation.  If
> any representative falls below the mathematically-designed cutoff point
> required to be in the body, then they're voted out, in effect.
>
> I reply:
>
> Depending on the capability of the computer system, there may not be 
> any need for such a cutoff threshold.
>
> You continued:
>
> People
> can switch their representatives when they want, and the
> representatives are there to both hash out/amend issues, and also form
> voting coalitions.
>
> I reply:
>
> Good point. Proxies could contact eachother and hash things out, such 
> as amendments, just as you describe. All that's possible in the proxy 
> system or proxy DD.
>
> PR advocates disparage the proxy system because it would take too 
> large a meeting place. That's an 18th century objection, now that we 
> have the Internet and telepoll technology.
>
> Of course if for some reason it were necessary to meet at a meeting 
> place it might be necessary to limit the number of proxies. Then proxy 
> STV could be used, in which there would be no surplus transfers, just 
> more powerful representatives. Of course some here have proposed 
> better PR methods based on Condorcet or Approval, and those too could 
> be adapted for proxy PR. I won't get into that because I don't deal 
> with PR.
>
> With existing technology the system needn't be limited to a meeting 
> place, and could use the Internet or telepoll technology.
>
> Mike Ossipoff
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from 
> McAfee® Security. 
> http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list 
> info
>