[EM] Proxy

[Adam Tarr]

Curt Siffert wrote:

>The flaw to other schemes that I keep bumping my head against is that 
>proportional representation disenfranchises the people below the cutoff 
>point, even though their views might still be valuable.  But DD by itself 
>isn't good either because it just gets so unwieldy in the drafting 
>process.  A bicameral solutions like this seems like an elegant way to 
>solve that catch-22.
>
>This way a Senate could pass something that largely reflects the consensus 
>that elected them, but the population has an exceptional reason to oppose 
>it, they could proxy against it on demand.

Right.  Glad you like it.  In fact, the house could reject a lot of the 
senate's proposals, since we're making it relatively easy (only need 40%) 
to get a bill though the senate.  The purpose of the senate is not to pass 
legislation, but to do the work of drafting decent possible legislation for 
the house to decide on.  The house is where the real up and down decisions 
get made.

In practice, if powerful proxies evolved, who spoke for millions of voters, 
then they would probably become involved in the back-room deals in the 
Senate, which would be fine.  As Mike Ossipoff said, "the people have spoken".

>One thing I'd want to tinker with.  I like proportional representation 
>because it reflects the population (above the cutoff), and each Senator 
>has equal voting power.  However, I don't like the part where each voter 
>doesn't have a direct link to their Senator (even though that's handled in 
>the House in this scenario).  So I'd want a way for the voter to still 
>have more direct control over who fills their party's seats, like through 
>a multi-winner ranked ballot.  "If my first choice is guaranteed to have a 
>slot, then make my vote count for my second choice."

When I said to elect the senate by PR, I was being intentionally 
non-specific.  List PR is one option, but I would agree that STV is 
better.  I actually prefer proportional approval voting to STV, but STV is 
fine.  Then there's the question of district size - I prefer something in 
the 7-9 member range but there are decent arguments for more or less.

>   Then I wonder if there's a good way for each voter to know who "their" 
> Senator is.

That is of course dependent on the voting scheme.  In STV you can figure 
out the percentage of your vote that went to each elected candidate, 
although this is a pretty arbitrary way to decide who "your" senator is.

>What I like about schemes like this is that it can be applied by a 
>software-driven web process for online communities.

Yeah, the house end of this would be a great chance for online (or 
telephone-based) democracy to work.  It really wouldn't be that hard.

>On May 15, 2004, at 6:59 PM, Adam Tarr wrote:
>>
>>How about this:
>>
>>- Bicameral legislature.  I'll call the two houses "senate" and "house" 
>>but this is just for identification purposes.
>>
>>- The "senate" is elected by a PR method.  The "senate" would act like a 
>>normal legislative body, meeting in committees, drafting legislation, and 
>>voting to pass it.  The only "tweak" would be that it would be unusually 
>>easy to pass legislation - maybe only requiring 35% or 40% of the vote.
>>
>>- the "house" would be a direct democracy using a proxy system.  The 
>>House would not debate or draft legislation - it would only vote on 
>>legislation (requiring the usual majority to pass).  If there is an 
>>executive veto, only the house needs to vote to override it.  (Or perhaps 
>>a 2/3 vote is considered "veto-proof".)
>>
>>Basically, I'd put professional politicians in the senate in charge of 
>>drafting laws, but the real up-and-down decisions are made by the people 
>>(the "house") in as direct a fashion as possible.  To me, this seems like 
>>the best of both worlds.
>>
>>-Adam