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

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 07:35 PM 9/1/2006, raphfrk at netscape.net wrote:

>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.

Yes, and someone with root access could alter the files. However, any 
system has trustees. Forging a proxy list is easily discoverable by 
the member whose assignment has been forged. If you need verification 
of memberships, external systems can do that, but in the FA context, 
it simply does not matter so much, because FAs don't move power 
through majority votes.


> > 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.

Yes. And that is pretty easy to do.

>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

That's it. If we are using polls to measure consensus, rather than to 
make decisions based on majority vote, small deviations of the vote 
from a truly and thoroughly representative vote aren't important, 
what is important is the *sense* of the vote. If you have an 80-20 
vote, you aren't worried about exact votes. If you have a 51-49 vote, 
you know that you aren't close to consensus yet, so unless it is an 
emergency, or the matter is not important, you postpone decision 
until deliberative process has more time to work.

(In FAs, decision is not actually made by the FA, it is made by 
caucuses which decide that the time has come that they may act, they 
will not see serious opposition -- or they are prepared for it. A 
caucus can act *against* a majority. Caucuses remain completely free 
to decide how much support is necessary, and, thus, they can also 
disregard what they think is fraud.)

>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.

Sure. But it would be aggregative, not deliberative. It would not 
concentrate trustworthiness, as I expect DP systems would. It would 
not create links of trust and rapport. It would just randomly put 
people together. That can have a limited usefulness.


>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"

Proxies are likely to vote their conscience, quite simply. In an FA, 
they aren't paid to do anything else.... they generally are not paid 
at all, though certainly proxies can charge for their services. But 
in a mature FA/DP structure, direct proxies are collected on a small 
scale, I expect. A base level member, representing nobody, may be 
connected to a proxy who represents perhaps twenty people (though it 
will depend on the organization and the nature of its business). 
*Every proxy* may only have that kind of direct clientele.

The voting systems that I promote don't allow the casting of proxy 
votes, per se. They simply allow members to vote. Standard. What is 
different is that a proxy list exists and may be used in analysis of 
the votes to expand them. No mechanism is provided for the proxy to 
vote one way and then to cast client votes another. The only way to 
do it would be for the proxy to have the client password and go in 
and directly cast the client vote on behalf of the client. A proxy 
could do that, if the client wants *and if the proxy were willing.* I 
wouldn't be. Would you? A lot of work, for what? After all, the 
client can simply do it himself or herself, or could ask anyone 
trusted, perhaps a spouse, to do it.

>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)

No analogy is perfect, but that's a pretty good one. Why don't we do 
this? It *does* make sense. We don't do it because we don't have the 
habit of communicating about these things with people of opposite 
persuasions, for the most part. Plus, of course, when we vote we are 
voting on complex elections, not just one party vs another.

But, yes, issue by issue, if there were a way to validate that 
abstention from political spending were real rather than merely 
promised, it would make sense for opposing factions to reduce their 
spending. Kind of like arms control....

What *really* makes sense is to coordinate spending where agreement 
can be found. Much less spending will be necessary.

Frankly, election spending is mostly quite inefficient.... but it is 
getting late....

If we were hiring executives for our company, what would we think 
about executives who were spending big bucks to encourage us to hire 
them? Would we trust them?

*Of course not!*

We would quite correctly understand that if they are spending, they 
must imagine that (1) we aren't smart enough to figure out who is the 
best candidate, and (2) they have something to gain that is worth 
spending the money. Nothing wrong with the second, but the first....

Campaign spending is often designed to appeal to instincts and snap 
judgements, basically to trick people into voting the desired way. 
You wouldn't hire people this way, why elect governments this way?


> > >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.

In a DP system, proxies retain supporters on a *small* scale. A proxy 
is only dealing directly with a few clients. Image is far less 
important, *media* image is practically irrelevant.