[EM] Proxy - bicameral

[Brian Olson]

On May 17, 2004, at 2:06 PM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:

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

~"The worst system possible, except for all the rest of them."

The dynamics of information flow have changed since Robert's Rules 
organized what would otherwise be an unruly bunch. What are the 
dynamics of the new systems and how can we best take advantage of them? 
This is still an open question and thousands of e-commerce and web 
enabled projects haven't found the best thing yet. I'd guess the 
closest base we have is Slash or Scoop (the engines behind slashdot.org 
and kuro5hin.org). But while they organize discussion, organizing 
decision making and voting is still not addressed. Scoop is closer as 
it lets every member vote on the merit of every post. Attaching a Proxy 
system to that could really amplify the effect to find the most salient 
comments.

If this were adapted to legislating, comments become bills and 
amendments ...

> 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.

I suppose the scenario your imagining goes like this:
  Factions A,B and C which control 40%, 40% and 20% of the voting power. 
C wants it's evil little plan to go through, and so trades a 
tit-for-tat with A or B. C supports B's evil plan, and B support's C's. 
B and C are otherwise neutral on each other's plans, but A strongly 
dislikes both. Minorities get their evil little plans passed when more 
people don't want them than want them.

That's a tough problem, but I'd rather deal with that problem than with 
a Two Party system where the extremists are driving each party and the 
centrists get taken for a ride. (Maybe it's not better, but at least 
it'd stir things up and give everyone a chance while the old power 
brokers have to learn the new game too.)

>> 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.

Perhaps. I'd say they can't vote directly, or be a proxy. They must 
chose a proxy or not vote. Members of a normal bi-cameral don't get any 
vote in the other house, not even a millionth of a vote. I'd rather 
keep it that way. I think such a system has more "Purity". Of course, 
they can speak all they want, and they'll have their vote in their own 
house. That's enough influence.

Brian Olson
http://bolson.org/