[EM] proxy representation with "dissenting votes"

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 04:43 PM 2/26/2006, Jiri Räsänen wrote:
>Dear James Green-Armytage,
>
>Well, I'd like to make a distinction first. What you propose is a
>system of _direct_representation_.
>Direct representation means a system where a representative uses the
>amounts of votes that he/she has got in the election.

It's such a simple idea that it would be a wonder 
if it had never occurred to anyone before.

>The first time the idea of direct representation appeared over a
>century ago. (I have the facts somewhere.)

The fact is that "direct representation" is quite 
equivalent to proxy representation, which is 
*common*. Proxy representation is a common-law 
right: whenever one has a property interest, one 
has the right, unless specifically prohibited, to 
name someone as an attorney-in-fact, to exercise 
whatever powers one would enjoy oneself. For 
efficiency, shareholders would often share a 
proxy. Thus, as Mikael Nordfors has pointed out, 
proxy democracy is what rich people do; his 
efforts have been directed toward extending the 
benefits of this to people who are not otherwise 
rich. His term for the proxy is "advisor," which 
I like because it emphasizes the downward 
communication aspect of the proxy, something 
often neglected in delegable proxy proposals, but 
which I consider critical. Delegable proxy is not 
merely a voting system. There is no need for it 
as a voting system alone, because, for a long 
time, direct voting has been possible even in 
large organizations, and the internet has made 
direct voting completely easy and practical.

But who has time to participate in the many 
organizations that might potentially allow direct 
voting? What happens in nearly all organizations 
which are simple direct democracies without using 
proxy representation is what I call the 
"dictatorship of the active." Extremists of all 
kinds have used the procedures of direct 
democracies to take over organizations, simply by 
being organized and dedicated; in a union, for 
example, most of the members have families and 
responsibilities that would keep them from 
attending meetings, especially long and contentious ones.

The proxy is ideally *not* a rubber-stamp for the 
opinions of the represented member. The proxy, 
instead, stands in for the member, functioning as 
a synapse between the activity of the member and 
the activity of the organization. I have seen 
direct democratic organizations that prohibited 
proxy voting, on the argument that the 
represented members weren't at the meeting to 
hear the debate, therefore their votes would be 
uninformed. And this, of course, is a 
misunderstanding of what a proxy is. While a 
proxy might agree with the represented member to 
vote in a certain way at an upcoming meeting, the 
proxy *is* at the meeting and, by the rules of 
the organization, ought to be (and legally is 
allowed to) make his or her own decision on the 
spot. You choose as proxy someone you trust to do that on your behalf.

Synapses are not merely relay stations for nerve 
impulses. They *filter* information, generally. 
They filter it in both directions. Not every 
nerve impulse from the periphery is passed on to 
the center, and not every movement or impulse 
from the center is passed on to the periphery. 
Fortunately. We could not function if they were.

What is new is not proxy representation, or 
"direct representation," but *delegable* proxy. 
The automatic delegation of proxies, where A -> B 
and B -> C, in the absence of both A and B, 
becomes A+B -> C, should make proxy 
representation possible on a much larger scale 
than would otherwise be functional. I know of 
only one effort, so far, that actually attempted 
to implement this, Demoex in Sweden, and they 
abandoned it for technical reasons -- buggy 
software --; yet delegable proxy does not require 
computers at all. It simply requires a list of 
current proxy assignments. Maintaining and 
sorting that list and extracting vote results 
from it is made easier with computers, but it 
does not require computers or the internet, these merely will facilitate it.

>The idea has been proposed by a several individuals later on. At the
>moment, there are at least two organisations proposing direct
>representation. One is The Finnish Citizens' Power Association, and the
>other is the Center for Collaborative Democracy (
>http://www.democracy2000.org )

I'm out of the loop as far as the Finnish 
organization, probably because of language. 
However, what I think has been missed by many 
delegable proxy proponents is that in the absence 
of experience with DP, most people aren't going 
to support it, no matter how good the idea looks 
to those who study it. Most people won't study 
it. I've spent four or five years now trying to 
promote the study of the idea, so I know. Of 
course, I'm just me. If there were more people 
involved working on it, and they were working 
together, more would become interested. Society 
already has its filters, to protect it from being inundated with wild schemes.

This is the paradox: if DP already were being 
used, it would be easy to obtain appropriate 
consideration of ideas like DP. This is because 
DP would create an network of filters, where the 
information is filtered through relationships of 
trust. So if I have an idea, I know exactly whom 
to discuss it with, someone I trust, who will 
either pass it on or explain to me, *personally*, 
why he or she is not doing so. And then I can 
either accept this and understand why, or I can 
look for someone else willing to put up with my wild ideas.

This analysis, again, will lead one to understand 
why the mass solication of proxies is 
non-functional, it is merely an attempt to 
exercise unwarranted power. And we see such a 
thing happening right here, with the solicitation 
of my proxy be someone whom I don't know and who, 
apparently, does not know me. And some will give 
that proxy, and this will mean *nothing*. Only if 
I check out the work of this person and decide, 
yes, I trust this person, and this person will be 
available to me -- neither of which I now know, 
would it be wise and functional for me to entrust 
him with my proxy. This is *not* in any way a 
criticism of this person, and I applaud his 
effort, within the structure presented to him. 
But that structure, as far as I have seen, is not 
going to make a major impact, in my opinion, for 
a series of reasons that I will discuss when I have time to continue this.

On the other hand, *any* effort to implement DP 
will further the cause, for even failures will 
generate experience and an understanding of how 
to avoid the problems that crop up. So we should 
watch this experiment, and I might even join, but 
I won't bypass the standard procedure in order to 
give added voting power to someone I don't know. 
Rather, I will join and participate as allowed. I 
won't *run* for proxy, which I consider an 
abhorrent practice! -- and this is exactly what 
is suggested in what I've seen from the 
organization. "anyone can run." Yes. But not a 
very bright idea. As they say, same old same old.