[EM] Proxy - bicameral

[Dr. Ernie Prabhakar]

On May 17, 2004, at 12:57 PM, bql at bolson.org wrote:

> On Mon, 17 May 2004, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:
>
>> My concern is to ensure that the process is friendly to 
>> multiple-choice
>> options.  My fear is that the traditional yes/no vote could easily be
>> used to hold the assembly 'hostage', by only giving them a choice
>> between the lesser of two evils.   At the very least, we should make
>> sure we don't encode anything to prevent it.
>>
>> Is the current focus on yes/no voting embodied in the Constituation
>> (perhaps in the way it defines vetoes and decisions), or is it really
>> an artifact of Robert's Rules?
>
> And if you count on the senate/parliament to set up mutually exclusive
> options for a multiple choice vote, they could abuse that and make
> exclusive things you might want both or more of. No system is so 
> perfect
> it doesn't require the members to be Good.

I agree, but I want to at least make it easier and more natural to do 
the right thing.  Systems often inadvertently create built-in 
incentives to do the -wrong- thing, and I presume one of the purposes 
of this list is precisely to create systems which maximize the 
incentive to be Good, though we can't of course force Good behavior.

For example, it seems to me that Robert's Rules explicitly require or 
assume a one-person/one-vote Plurality type of decision-making, and it 
thus (naively) inconsistent with rank-order voting.  Is that a fair 
assessment?  Further, that sort of winner-take-all result seems to lead 
to a sort of Duverger's effect on committees.

One of my biggest concerns about PR is how to avoid excessive 
minor-party influence.   I suspect this sort of parliament PR with 
rank-order choices ratified by a DD-proxy assembly might well be the 
optimal way to avoid that, by ensuring the maximally acceptable policy 
is both generated and approved.   I'm just saying that we need some 
sort of procedural reform to at least *enable* people to do the right 
thing, even though we can't force it.

>>> It's also possible that members of parliament would themselves be
>>> powerful
>>> proxies, unless that was specifically forbidden by law.
>>
>> Ooh, very interesting point.    Hmm, I wonder if that's a good or bad
>> thing...
>
> I think dual-membership should be forbidden. Members of the
> senate/parliament should be disenfranchised from the proxy-assembly 
> vote.
> This special case disenfranchisement of 100 ouf of 3e8 doesn't trouble 
> me,
> given the powerful vote they have in their legislative body.

Meaning they can't even specify someone as a higher-order proxy 
anywhere?   Its a plausible argument, though I think it would suffice 
simply to not allow them to -be- a proxy for others; they can still 
specify someone else as their proxy.


>
> Brian Olson
> http://bolson.org/
>
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list 
> info