[EM] proxy system

[Curt Siffert]

James, one thing that strikes me about the idea of starting out with a
nonbinding proxy/direct system that slowly scales up is that  
technically,
there's no barrier towards one just starting up.  I've actually spec'd  
up
ideas for forming such an online community, where people just simply
join up and start selecting each other as proxies.  The size of the  
legislative
body could have a mathematical relationship (smaller) to the size of the
overall membership, and they could choose to vote on and remark about
matters of political concern to the membership.  And issue press  
releases.
They'd invite as wide a participation as possible (the point being to  
INCLUDE
populations that might disagree with the early findings of the group),  
scale
up, perhaps include a physical meetup component, and seek to gather up
more and more respectability over time.

Perhaps it would never end up as more than a lobbying organization, but
the point is they would be able to market themselves as nothing more  
than
the views of those participating in their process - after a time they  
could
argue they are representing the views of the nation better than Congress
does.

By the way, James, I feel like I have an abstract sense that there is a  
flaw
in your paradox resolution scheme.  I'm not sure why, it has something  
to
do with your solution have a time-based judgment to it, when the voter's
ranked preferences all exist at the same time.  Let me think about this  
for
a second.

Ok, got it:

Who is A's proxy in an A->B->C->A loop?  You have two rule candidates.
#1: it would go to A's second choice (A').  So the "settled" version is  
that
	A's proxy is A'.  This means that B and C's proxies would be A'.  The  
flaw
	is that this depends on A's proxy being resolved first.  If we looked  
at B
	first, then all three would have a proxy of B'.  If we looked at C  
first, then
	all three would have a proxy of C'.  This is a flaw that could be  
abused
	by those who count the votes.

#2: it would be to C's second choice (C').  So A's proxy would be C'.   
Therefore,
B and C would also have resulting proxies of C'.  But if B is resolved  
first, then
the proxy of all three would be A'.  Again, it depends on who is  
resolved first,
again a flow that could be abused by those who count the votes.

I don't know much about proxy yet - do other proxy schemes already have  
the
proxy-loop problem solved in a bulletproof  manner?

Thanks,
Curt


On May 15, 2004, at 6:34 PM, James Green-Armytage wrote:

>
> Hi, it's James. I haven't been keeping up with the list much lately,  
> but I
> just wanted to respond to some of the recent discussion regarding a  
> proxy
> direct democracy system.
>
> Mike Ossipoff wrote:
>> PR is obsolete. Now Direct Democracy (DD) is easily feasible with  
>> today's
>> technology. And DD would be much better accepted by Americans than  
>> would
>> PR.
>> I'm not saying that I oppose PR, but PR is nothing but an obsolete
>> substitute for DD.
>
> 	I think that Mike's basic idea here is extremely good and important,  
> but
> that he has overstated it. It is true that the proxy DD system can be  
> seen
> as a logical conclusion of proportional representation (PR), that is a  
> PR
> where the threshold / quota to be a representative is reduced to one  
> vote,
> so that everyone gets their first choice. DD does a lot of the things  
> that
> PR should be expected to do at its best, and indeed does them much more
> effectively.
> 	However, proxy DD isn't a perfect substitute for PR. I have to agree  
> with
> people who say that there is some benefit to having a legislative body
> such that they can all fit in the same room at the same time, and  
> actually
> engage in realistic back-and-forth discussion about the decisions that
> they are making. Also it is helpful for them to be able to engage in
> successive votes on a single issue.
> 	I don't favor a system that totally abolishes such a legislature. And  
> as
> long as such a legislature exists, and has any kind of power, I would
> prefer that it uses PR rather than single-district representation. So  
> what
> I would prefer, ideally, is a system that combines a PR legislature  
> with a
> proxy DD procedure.
> 	Mike might also be right that proxy DD is in some ways more winnable  
> than
> PR. First of all, yes, PR will be very hard to institute, since
> single-district representation is totally hard-wired into our political
> system, and to my knowledge deeply entrenched in federal and state
> constitutions. And also, yes, direct democracy is probably a more
> "obvious" democratic improvement to most voters. While PR can be  
> painted
> as some sort of party-bureaucracy elitism, and the argument in favor  
> of PR
> takes a little while to explain, DD obviously means that "the people"  
> will
> have more of a say, which is supposed to be what democracy is all  
> about.
> 	However, once again, the acceptability of a proxy DD procedure depends
> heavily on the kind of procedure that is proposed. I think that  
> actually
> handing over all legislative power to a DD system right away is much  
> too
> much at once. I think that a large majority of Americans would be  
> against
> such a move, partly because they would doubt the integrity (security,
> etc.) of an untested system, and partly because they just wouldn't know
> what to expect the outcomes of direct votes to be like. Also, I think  
> it
> would take a lot of time to get everyone registered and to get  
> effective
> proxy networks going, and you wouldn't want the votes carrying legal
> weight during this period.
> 	This is why I have suggested that we begin with a proxy DD system  
> that is
> non-binding. The idea is for it to get up and running, to start working
> well, to gain people's confidence before it ever takes on serious legal
> power. In fact I suspect that even if as a nonbinding system it could
> exert substantial influence and achieve impressive democratic aims if  
> it
> was handled correctly.
> 	Also, I'm not sure that there needs to be a proxy DD vote on every  
> issue
> that would pass through Congress. I think that it would make more sense
> for proxy DD voting to take place at intervals at least a couple months
> apart to give people time to consider and digest the upcoming issues.  
> My
> notion is that the outcomes of the direct votes would serve as an  
> overall
> guide for action within the legislature.
> 	I think that you could gradually transition towards giving the proxy
> votes more legal weight. For example, at some intermediate stage you  
> might
> have a rule that a proxy DD measure that wins by a certain percentage
> would stand unless it was voted down by an equal or greater percentage  
> of
> the Congress. I don't know, something along those lines. I do think  
> that
> the proxy system should still be subject to some sort of checks and
> balances no matter what.
>
> Curt Siffert wrote:
>> 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.
>
> 	I think that the more periodic proxy votes I have suggested would
> ameliorate this problem somewhat. But in general, civic participation  
> is
> for many people desirable in itself, which outweighs the opportunity  
> cost
> of the time that they spend on it. After all, isn't participation in  
> the
> course of history one of the things that gives meaning to our lives?
> Stipends are possible, I suppose. People within institutions such as
> universities and NGO's might be likely to have the support of their
> institution in spending time on proxy research. Members of congress and
> other elected officials can, of course, still be indicated as proxies.
> Retirees, full-time church officials, people who prefer to only work  
> part
> time, and yes, the rich... all of these are reasonable candidates for
> proxyhood.
> 	Also, another part of my proposal is to allow for votes to flow to
> proxies of proxies and so on, which means that I could have lots of  
> people
> indicating me as a proxy, but if I get busy or don't have time to do  
> the
> research for some reason I can just defer them up the chain to my own
> proxies. So I think that this problem can be dealt with quite  
> effectively.
>
> Curt Siffert wrote:
>> 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.  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.  People
>> can switch their representatives when they want, and the
>> representatives are there to both hash out/amend issues, and also form
>> voting coalitions.
>
> 	This sounds more or less like proportional representation, except for  
> the
> notion that people can re-vote whenever they want to, that is, there's  
> no
> fixed election day. I think I've already said that I like proportional
> representation ; ). I guess that there is something to be said for the
> idea of not having a fixed election day and letting voters re-vote
> whenever they like, but I think that the cost / security issues of  
> such a
> system might be a bit prohibitive. I suppose that you can always make  
> an
> argument for more frequent elections, if you like, while perhaps giving
> voters the option of repeating their earlier vote by default, that is,
> without actually having to do anything. I guess I'd be open to that,
> although I don't have a strong opinion on it at this point.
>
> all my best,
> James
>
> P.S. I've already posted the link here, but just so y'all know, my  
> current
> proxy system proposal is at
> http://fc.antioch.edu/~jarmyta@antioch-college.edu/voting_methods/ 
> proxy.htm
>
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list  
> info
>