[EM] proxies and confidentiality

Paul Kislanko kislanko at airmail.net
Wed Mar 1 12:54:41 PST 2006

Paul Kislanko wrote
> This is the fundamental question with delegable-Proxy. In 
> order to meet
> Jobst's requirements, there must be a nomination and election 
> (by secret
> ballot) of proxy-holders.
> Here, at least, there's no question about conforming to any 
> criterion, since
> from the voter's standpoint it's not picking a winner, it is 
> 'delegating my
> vote to X'. An "election" must be held to allow me to choose 
> 'Choose ONE of
> {A, B, C, ...} to cast your vote OR choose "I will cast my 
> own vote".If N
> voters chose A, then A's vote counts N+1 times (his own plus 
> the N who said
> "whatever A says is fine with me").
> Nobody (not even A) knows WHO delegated their vote to A, but 
> how many people
> did has been counted.
> And since it's more a "selection" than an "election", there 
> should be no
> argument about what method to choose. It's only a "pick one 
> of the choices",
> so simple counts for each choice are all that is needed. 

But this gets back to the original problem with Proxies. As I wrote it above
it is an "all-or-none", so if I agree with A on 3 issues, B on 2, and C, D,
E, F,... on one each then I can either be lazy and say "whatever A says"
even though A doesn't represent my opinion on a majority of the issues, or I
can be responsible and select "I'll vote for myself, thank you".

Not to mention the folks who would say "I agree with A on 3 issues, B on 2,
and C, D, E, F... on one, but I ONLY care about the one that I agree with F
on so I'll give him all my votes" (this is what has happened in the US over
the last 8 years to make the US the mockery of democracy).

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list