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

[raphfrk at netscape.net]

 From: abd at lomaxdesign.com
 > Wikis can handle this easily, leaving a record of who edited the file for each edit, so we can confirm, if needed, that it was the member who added his or her record and designated the proxy, and it was the proxy who accepted. 
 
 Someone would still have root access for the wiki. Maybe some kind of distributed system could be used, like usenet. You submit a change to 1 wiki and then it propagates. It would be hard to compromise all the servers.
 
 > How this list is *used* is a separate question. Current thinking is that the association, if large enough, will provide certain tools, but the data used by these tools will be generally available, and so to most forms of analysis can be done entirely independently of central control. 
 
 I guess it depends on what the data is. Ideally, it should be checkable by each person based on what they submit.
 
 > >Anyway, for something like a proxy system, you could try to 
 > >come up with an API. On the one hand, it could be argued to be 
 > >centralised. However, even in open source software, they 
 > >still use standards. A good standard is one that streamlines 
 > >ensuring compatibility while at the same time doesn't limit 
 > >the various methods of implementation. 
 > 
 > The essential tools are not at all the problem. Those tools could be written by any programmer, for some in minutes. Take a proxy list and use it to analyze a vote list and provide an expanded vote. Or, for example, monitor a proxy list and periodically issue a notice to members of closed loops below a defined size in comparison to the organization. 
 
 I guess I was thinking where the vote would be customised for a specific application. The more general the API, the more applications it can cover.
 
 > Whether or not this is even feasible depends on voting procedures. We are recommending, in fact, standard voting procedures where those participating vote. The voting procedure is blind to proxy voting. Proxy votes are *added* based on analysis. In such a system, there is no method in place for a proxy to cast a vote for a member which is different from his or her own. 
 > 
 > Now, if a proxy is willing to vote against his or her own best understanding, simply to please a client, the proxy is free to do so. I seriously doubt, though, that such a proxy would be widely trusted! (Not in a DP system with an established culture expecting good service -- i.e., direct communication -- from proxies. In a populist system, early on, it might happen, and it could be quite dangerous.) 
 
 The decision may be against the proxy's own interests. However, when the improvement in power of the proxy is included, then it might be in his interests.
 
 If the power associated with being a proxy was kept low enough, then you are correct, assuming the voters pick a proxy that has similar views, it would be almost as good as having the voter present, with the benefit of the smaller discussion size
 
 Also, another option would be a rotating proxy system. This would be a group where the proxy is picked at random from those in the group that volunteer. However, I guess that would be up to a given group.
 
 This means that the person who ends up being proxy for the group wouldn't be proxy for the next time no matter what they do, so they are more likely to "vote their conscience"
 
 > >The issue is that for any kind of negotiation, there must be a 
 > >penalty for not coming to an agreement. Time is often used as 
 > >the penalty. 
 > 
 > Consider this. There is an FA/DP political organization, perhaps it is Metaparty (http://metaparty.beyondpolitics.org). There is a group which thinks that we should immediately withdraw from Iraq, and therefore we should create a campaign fund for candidates who agree to support this. Another group thinks that this is surrender to terrorism, and that we should support candidates who disagree with withdrawal, who will push through toward victory. Let's say that the numbers are 55% withdrewal and 45% stay-the-course. Okay, if they form the actual PAC that collect money -- the FA is not going to do this, and every member of each faction contributes to their respective cause, and, let's say, there are 10 million so-active members and each one contributes an average $20, we are going to spend $110 million politicking in one direction and $90 million politicking in the other. 
 > 
 > What a huge waste! If we can find some position that would enjoy a broader consensus, we can work for it, and not only will our efforts not mostly cancel each other out, but we will, if we have broad representation within the organization, i.e., our organization represents to some degree society as a whole, also not have such a difficult time in the political market. We will already be proposing something broadly acceptable, and it may not be necessary to spend so much money. 
 
 Sorta like where 2 people who support the opposite parties both agree not to vote. This saves them both from the time to go to the polls, without changing the vote.
 
 (though maybe not a perfect analogy)
 
 > >Hmm, maybe proxy voting could be assumed to be a method to remove 
 > >the cost to the individual of being a hold out? (and that would 
 > >be a bad thing) 
 > 
 > The cost is still there for the proxy. Proxy representation establishes a far more effective freedom. Yes, freedom can be abused, but that proxy still has to slog through. 
 > 
 
 Right, if your assumption that the proxy cares more about the issues at hand than retaining supporters is correct.
 
 > >The total amount of time for a town meeting is divided equally between 
 > >all potential voters. 
 > > 
 > >When you set someone as a proxy, you are granting them the right 
 > >to use your time allocation. 
 > 
 > That might work. If you are there, you have your own time, which you can voluntarily yield to anyone. That is, in fact, how the Senate often functions..... 
 > 
 > >Time not used in one meeting can be carried forward to the next (with 
 > >probably a limit to how much can be stored). A proxy uses up the same 
 > >amount of time for all people he is proxy for, so they all bear the 
 > >burden equally. 
 > 
 > It can be done. If it is worth the effort, it will be done.... When the meetings are relatively small, it isn't necessary. 
 
 I was thinking of it both as a mechanism for allowing people to specify how much they care about an issue and a way to allocate speaking time.
 
 > >No meeting may run for longer than the planned duration. 
 > 
 > Give that one up! Meeting majorities have the absolute right to extend or shorten meetings.... "Motion to Adjourn!" Undebatable, simple majority carries. "Motion to set aside the Orders of the Day" Also undebatable, simple majority carries. (The Orders of the Day would include a preset time for adjournment.) 
 
 If someone speaks for longer than allocated, that would be added at the end.
 
 Alternatively (or also), if the meeting is extended, everyone at the meeting gets their additional time allocation.
 
 > >Also, there would probably be a rule that some time (say 25-33%) is 
 > >"free" and speakers are picked at random. This would given non-proxies 
 > >(who probably have only 30-40 seconds "in the bank") a chance to speak. 
 > 
 > The fact is that if you can't convince any of the proxies who are present to speak for you, you have little chance of accomplishing much at that meeting. But, yes, it could be done. 
 
 That was just to give a random selection of non-proxies a change to speak.
 
 > >In practice, there might even be a rule where a proxy can say 
 > >"... and I speak for 15 more minutes". He wouldn't have to actually 
 > >speak, it would just remove 15 minutes from the maximum time the 
 > >meeting can run. 
 > 
 > That is a truly interesting idea. But I don't think that meeting maximums would fly. Indeed, most of my work is toward standing meetings, as by mailing list or other forum. 
 > 
 
 Time could be virtual in that case. Alternatively, it could be represented by the right to have a link to your comment appear first in the thread list for a while or something.
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20060901/2f65be74/attachment-0003.htm>