[EM] participatory democracy

[Anthony O'Neal]

>
>
> It's a chaotic system, in that there is no precise, neat, structure
> set up in advance. However, the human nervous system is organized
> pretty much like this, from the ground up.
>
> How about joining Metaparty?
>
> (And you can be sure that most of us will support other efforts that
> follow similar principles. One thing about Free Associations: they
> could fracture easily, but they tend not to, because they don't need
> to, unless the FA principles have been corrupted, and they can merge,
> even more easily, because all it takes is for communication to start up.)
>
> This revolution *will* happen, almost certainly, in my opinion,
> unless the conditions disappear (i.e., most essentially, freedom of
> association). It is too simple an idea. I think that once it is tried
> on a significant scale, that will be all she wrote. The real question
> is how long it will take. It *could* be quite rapid. And, then again.....
>
> At this point, however, support for the idea is too diffuse. This is
> changing. DP was independently invented in about four different
> places around the world, over the last decade (I haven't seen
> anything older than that -- I was working on it before then, but
> didn't write it down....)
>
>

Nanson (that Australian fellow who created Nansons method, which is the only
Condorcet method to have ever been implemented in a real election, something
worthy of note since it was one of the simpler ways to do Condorcet) created
a method over 100 years ago that he saw as a solution to STV's problem... as
many candidates from each district are elected as there are candidates, and
they have as many votes in parliament as they had votes from constituents.
The person who reviewed this immediately criticized the idea, by saying that
it would create a very large legislature. It would be easy to compensate for
it's flaws, however, by simply limiting the amount of representatives that
can be admitted to the house, and allowing candidates unelected to transfer
their votes to other candidates.  The real problem I see is in the
legislative rules, as it would no longer be a peer assembly.  Also, people
would view it as unstable, a notion which I find a preposterous propaganda
scam against all PR systems.  Hey, one party systems were also very
"stable".

I also re-invented an exactly simialar scheme a few years ago.  The notion
is obvious, why should someone have the same amount of votes in a
legislauture as someone whom more people support?

But elections are just drilled into the head of people.  We have to be
realistic about things.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20060629/4979aabd/attachment-0003.htm>