[Election-Methods] DYN is probably better, but less proposable

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 07:42 AM 7/26/2007, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>But, when I and others have proposed non-traditional methods, methods using
>input other than voters' ballots, we've encountered strong opposition from
>people. I've even gotten consistent rejection for the candidate withdrawal
>option, on the grounds that it supposedly gives candidates power to overrule
>voters.

Yes. It is a fundamentally myopic argument. Here we are, giving 
enormous power to the victor of an election, yet unwilling to give a 
*lesser* power, the power to contribute to the choice -- they don't 
make it alone, unless the public has clearly given them permission to 
do so -- to the same people whom they presumably would trust in the 
office itself.

An elector holding Asset votes has some power, delegated by the 
voters, but does not hold the nuclear football. The winner of the 
election for President does.

The thinking that is leading to rejection of the idea is precisely 
the thinking that keeps the people that think that way powerless.

>So, as good as non-traditional methods could be, I don't propose them for
>public elections anymore, because of the rejection that they've elicited in
>the past.

There is, I believe, a way around this. First of all, proxy voting is 
*not* non-traditional. It is simply not traditional in politics. It 
is ubiquitous in business, where there can be more power involved, 
and risk, than that involved with a small government. It is a 
common-law right whenever property is involved. Rich people *demand* 
the right to be represented by proxy, because they understand the 
power that it gives them. It does not decrease their power, it increases it.

But it is, indeed, very difficult for many to see this, so entrenched 
are our ways of thinking about politics.

The way around it is to deploy delegable proxy and similar systems in 
nongovernmental organizations. These organizations can be extremely 
small to start. However, if the theory is correct, they will grow and 
function more efficiently than otherwise. Now, this doesn't 
necessarily make it easy.

It took me several years to come to the point where there was *one* 
other person who understood what I've been working on. Others have 
come to congruence with me on this or that point, but most of what I 
think about this is still obscure to the vast majority. Increasingly, 
there are others who are beginning to get the point.

It's not just delegable proxy. That has become quite a widespread 
idea over the last few years. It is how to get from here to there, 
how to create, essentially, intelligent organizational systems 
without running into all the old and commonplace hazards. Most people 
have never thought about this stuff, and when they think of 
organizing, they think of either relatively old ways, or certain 
appealing and untested ways -- and they are not aware of how these 
ways go astray, even when they seem really good to start. Consensus 
procedure, for example, is exhilarating. At first. And then the 
reality of tedious meeting after tedious meeting sets in. People 
drift away.... There is an answer to this. If you want consensus, go 
for delegable proxy!

But consensus organizations I've seen have typically rejected proxy 
voting. I've discussed it with them and have read bylaws about it. 
They assume that proxy voting is essentially absentee voting. It 
isn't. That's not a proxy, that is somebody carrying in a vote that 
someone else cast. Sure, in corporate proxies, proxies can be told 
how to vote, but only if the proxy agrees to that.

What we are suggesting are systems where the proxy votes himself or 
herself, and any held proxies are automatically considered to be 
added to that. So the proxy is really an "elected" representative, 
who is carrying the client's vote unless the client steps in and 
votes directly. So you can have representation and reserve ultimate 
power *at the same time.*

(If the rules allow a certain time after a decision for a member to 
learn how the proxy voted, and then vote directly if the member cares 
to do so, then we have direct/representative democracy, and it is 
really direct, in fact, because power is retained by the client. This 
has been considered impossible by most political theorists, but, for 
reasons that escape me, they have completely overlooked proxy voting 
as a technique of democracy, which it clearly is and has been for a long time.)

So I see how to get from here to there. But I can't do it by myself. 
It takes people who have come to understand the importance, taking 
steps to create the organizations, or to influence existing 
organizations to adopt the techniques.

It's actually terminally simple. Proxy expansions don't have to be 
automated, it can be done, even, without computers. Under Robert's 
Rules, a vote doesn't even have to be actually *counted* unless a 
count is requested, so the same can be done with vote expansions by 
proxies. Generally, I would expect direct votes to come up with the 
same results as votes with proxy expansions, but it is the exceptions 
that can be crucially important. Proxy voting keeps fanatics and 
people of extreme views from running away with organizations, which 
they often do, because they are more highly motivated to participate....