[EM] Free Associations (was: Trees and single-winner methods)

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax abd at lomaxdesign.com
Fri Mar 23 08:23:05 PDT 2007

At 01:56 AM 3/23/2007, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>I suggest you look at Trees by Proxy as a better base for your thoughts.
>It provides for electing legislatures, such as boards of trustees or
>elders, via continuous elections (proxies).
>Unlike Free Associations, these have traditional powers and responsibilities.

First of all, I'm not sure what "Trees by Proxy" means. Is there a 
description somewhere? I've been describing Delegable Proxy, which 
certainly sounds like "Trees by Proxy."

Mr. Ketchum doesn't seem to understand that "my thoughts" are deeply 
involved in both the FA and DP concepts, and what I have to present 
which is new is the combination. I don't *want* "traditional powers 
and responsibilities," they are precisely part of the problem. I'm 
not going to go through a detailed explanation, but "traditional 
powers and responsibilities" are appropriate, largely, for control 
structures, not for those which maximize intelligence.

So that Mr. Ketchum suggests that "Trees by Proxy" would provide a 
better base for my thoughts, and that it "provides for electing 
legislatures," shows principally that he has not understood what I'm 
suggesting, not merely that he disagrees with it.

Sure, Delegable Proxy can be used for elections and for many other 
things. BeyondPolitics.org is interested in this, as we are 
interested in all applications of Delegable Proxy and similar 
technologies. But we have a very specific application in mind as an 
organizational initiative, it is an application of DP that can start 
*today*. It needs no changes in law. Nor does it take collecting 
large sums of money, what is involved financially is literally pocket 
change. Nor does it take large numbers of people; at this point every 
person who becomes involved furthers the cause significantly. And 
this would include people who participate merely to criticize.

>I said nothing of parties, but said nothing against parties.  I suspect
>they would have less power than with traditional elections.

Sure. Mr. Ketchum should understand by now that not all I write is a 
specific response to something specifically raised by someone else. 
It is, rather, what occurs to me *in relation* to what someone has 
written. Unless, of course, I start the thread.

>The actual "electing" of someone wishing to be a legislator has little
>formality.  The attracting of enough proxies to make one a legislator with
>muscle could get involved.

Consider what would happen in an FA/DP organization. A proxy attracts 
clients. We think that proxies in FA/DP organizations will generally 
have not a large number of direct clients. But suppose this proxy 
impresses those who are themselves broadly trusted. The proxy could 
end up being at the center of a natural caucus that contains 
significant numbers of members. The proxy would make an ideal 
candidate for office, or for nominating someone for office. The body 
of supporters is already created.

Even if the FA/DP organization is not a directly political one!

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list