[EM] democratic community, the web, implicit/explicit instant proxy

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 10:00 AM 8/30/2006, raphfrk at netscape.net wrote:
>I think another big issue is that something like this is actually annoying
>until you hit the scaling issues.  In a forum with say 20 users, you don't
>actually need it.  However, by the time a forum hits the "big time", the
>system is already in place.  Changing it to a system that scales better
>is harder at that point.
>
>I think that a possible method would be to find some community that is
>suffering from the scaling problem and offer them a solution.

Control the filters and you control the intelligence. This is the 
danger of filters, but, obviously, large-scale communication requires 
filters, for noise grows with scale; "noise" includes not only 
irrelevant information and analysis, but also what is redundant. When 
you are searching for information or commentary on some topic, and 
you come across a thread somewhere which discusses it, it is quite 
annoying -- and time-wasting -- to have to pour through a series of 
useless posts of the nature of "I agree," or "That's wrong." (Without 
explanation, so all we get from these posts is one bit, literally, of 
information that is irrelevant unless we have some special reason to 
trust the particular writer, whom, in practice, we don't usually know at all.)

One of the central problems in social system reform is precisely what 
has been mentioned here. Small-scale organizations don't need the 
filters, it would seem, for they don't generate enough traffic to 
overwhelm most members.

However, in fact, even small organizations are suffering from the 
noise problem; they leak members, albeit at a smaller pace, and they 
do often waste a lot of member energy, such not enough to cause the 
mamber to bail.

I've had occasion to observe quite a bit of cohousing community 
process. These communities generally have some kind of consensus 
process: they require that all members agree to a proposal, or at 
least "stand aside," for the proposal to pass. Many members are quite 
enthusiastic about this; indeed, it can be exhilarating to 
participate in a process that starts with serious opposition and 
division and end up with something that everyone can accept. However, 
the time it takes can be excruciating, and so these communities have 
a tendency to bleed members. Some people stay in the community but 
stop coming to meetings. Others find a reason to leave.

However, I will once again bring up the Persistence of Power 
Inequities effect. Structural Power Inequities, giving more power to 
some members of an organization or society, tend to preserve 
themselves, because movements toward equity will reduce the power of 
the favored members, who, by the defined conditions, have excess power.

In these intentional and often intense communities, those who have 
the time for extended meeting process have a power advantage. And, 
I've seen, when changes are proposed that might level the field, they 
do, in fact, resist tham. I've introduced the concept of proxy voting 
to some communities. Not welcome.

Part of the problem was that they understood "proxy voting" to be 
absentee voting. I quite understand this objection. Someone who is 
not present cannot generally have followed the discussion and respond 
to the various amendments or arguments that may have arisen. But that 
isn't proxy voting, unless by proxy voting we limit ourselves to 
"instructed voting." Rather, as we understand proxy voting, the proxy 
generally casts a vote seen as being in the interest of the client, 
*in the immediate judgement of the proxy.* Because we are generally 
assuming that a proxy is a member of the organization himself or 
herself, we generally assume that proxies will simply cast their own 
vote, and the vote of the client is assumed from that. The systems we 
would set up, in general, would not allow a proxy to cast a vote for 
the client that is *not* the proxy's own vote.

(Essentially, the voting system only allows members to vote for 
themselves. Proxy votes are added in analysis, and we would have the 
analysis be distributed, i.e., anyone can analyze the vote according 
to any procedure they choose. Any meeting of the association would 
have its own rules for procedural matters. I've assumed that simple 
proxy extension of the vote would be performed. But these votes are 
not binding on members in any way. And I could go further into the 
theory of Free Associations, which is essentially anarchist or 
libertarian theory. It is, oddly enough, the default form of 
association among humans in small groups, at least in present-day 
society. But it is typically lost as associations grow because the 
knowledge of how to scale it is not widespread. Indeed, it is rare, 
outside of certain circles not normally in the public eye.)

As I said, controlling the filters controls the flow of information 
and analysis. Thus control of the filters is highly sensitive. There 
are those among us who imagine that having the control be through 
some kind of automation, particularly public-source software, will be 
safe. Maybe. For this to be true, the raw data must be public. 
Otherwise the gatekeepers have privileged access and a corrupt 
gatekeeper could wreak havoc, with detection being difficult. Again, 
schemes can be imagined to have watchers watching the watchers, etc., 
but.... in short, we prefer total openness. A proxy list is 
verifiable by any member. Analysis of a proxy list to expand a set of 
explicit, open votes can be done by anyone.

But, in general, the members of existing organizations fall into two 
categories: those who think that the system is defective, because it 
does not give them adequate access, and those who think that it is 
adequate, because they either have privileged access or they trust 
those who do. Of course, the latter group generally has excess power 
and is not interested in a system which would evenly distribute it. I 
remember one conversation with a man active in politics in our 
(former) town, which is a Town Meeting town. Even though Town Meeting 
works quite well, there are obvious problems, even in a town of 1000 
like the one in question. And this man saw how FA/DP could be quite 
useful. "However," he said, "the system works pretty well as it is, 
I'm not sure we need something better." Of course he didn't think 
that. He was a member of the Board of Selectmen, the three elected 
citizens who make decisions ad interim on behalf of Town Meeting.

His point was that those who want to have access can get it. He's 
right of course. If they want it enough to put in the necessary time, 
which can be considerable, they can generally gain access. That is 
true everywhere. Problem is, the vast majority of people don't have 
the time. So they are effectively shut out.

Town Meeting allows all citizens of the town to vote directly on Town 
issues by attending Town Meeting. However, there is a huge group of 
Town citizens who are effectively locked out by this. For starters, 
single mothers.... Town meeting is always held in the evening, and it 
can go on late on occasion. There is no absentee voting at Town 
Meeting. And, of course, proxy voting is not allowed.

Proxy voting is S.O.P. in corporations, and, indeed, it is a 
common-law right where property rights are involved. But almost 
uniformly disallowed in politics. (However, as an example where it 
*is* allowed, New York state legislators may vote in committee by 
proxy.) Proxy voting is *demanded* by the powerful. Tell the 
shareholders of a corporation that they can't vote by proxy, they 
will simply pull their investments. (At least the knowledgeable will. 
There are now large numbers of naive small shareholders who will put 
up with quite a bit of nonsense.)

Why is it prohibited in politics? Could it have anything to do with 
the fact that it would allow new power centers to form, out of the 
control of existing oligarchs?

I'm quite aware that arguments will be raised that proxies would be 
abused, etc. I'm also aware that these arguments essentially assume 
the incapacity of the general public to make good decisions. Odd, in 
a democracy, that assumption, don't you think?

The general public, in fact, typically makes quite good decisions 
*when they have sufficient information.* Information is actually the 
core of the problem, and, here, I include trustworthy analysis under 
"information."

FAs are really almost entirely about information, since they do not 
directly control power. They only advise their members (and possibly 
others). In an FA, the most powerful tools will be those which are 
able to generate consensus, because when a society finds consensus, 
it can act essentially without opposition. If we could get everyone 
to agree, for example, to some public proposal, including how to 
organize and fund it, getting it actually done is practically a 
detail. If the public were independently organized and could find a 
consensus about whom to elect as President, the election method is almost moot.

But how to do this? Consensus process *does* work, for many issues 
and problems initially thought to be impossibly contentious. But it 
*requires* small groups. DP is a device for generating and connecting 
those groups without imposing some top-down or preset structure. In 
theory, it should be quite efficient.

But getting people to try it.... that's quite another story. All I 
can say is, we are working on it.

Over the last year or so, I have seen very substantial progress. I 
think that if the pace of growth of understanding of the concepts can 
be maintained, I am quite likely see large and effective FA/DP 
organizations within my life expectancy, which is on the order of 
twenty years plus, at the moment. And it is quite possible that even 
one substantial breakthrough could accelerate that. Theoretically, if 
even a few people started seriously working for it, we could see an 
impact on the next U.S. Presidential election, as an example. Right 
now there are at least two doing this, plus there are, I believe, 
other groups around the world working on similar proposals, though I 
think the FA/DP idea is the only one with a specific implementation 
plan, how to get from here to there. That is, how to make and market 
the better mousetraps, not just how to design them.