[EM] Trees by Proxy
davek at clarityconnect.com
Sat Mar 24 20:41:43 PDT 2007
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:31:45 -0400 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> It should be understood that my writing is often quite general. When
> I propose Delegable Proxy, for example, I am referring to the most
> generic implementation, though I may sometimes assume certain rules.
> Mr. Ketchum seems to treat DP as if the rules were fixed and quite
> particularly fixed.
NO!!! Though the rules I propose here are tailored to an environment for
electing legislatures - much different than Abd's Free Associations.
Not intended to conflict with use by Abd for whatever may fit Free
Associations (or other uses Abd may promote).
> At 03:27 AM 3/24/2007, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>>Anyone interested in understanding what I am offering here had best
>>ignore anything Abd offers here:
>> He offers Free Associations, Asset voting, and Delegable
>>Proxy. He may have something of value, but I also claim value for my thoughts.
I accept Abd's suggestion to discard his words whenever they conflict with
TO OTHERS! I welcome attempts at contributing toward using proxies to
improve quality of legislatures.
>> I offer proxies as a way of populating a legislature. While
>>we both got proxies from the same source, there are enough
>>differences in the way they are used that you get nothing but
>>headaches if you mix Abd's ideas with mine.
>>On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 01:07:54 -0400 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>>>At 09:36 PM 3/23/2007, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>>>>Seeing Free Associations and Trees by Proxy as different concepts:
>>>> Abd's Free Associations use proxies to create Free Associations,
>>>>which decide for themselves what they are and do.
>>>> My Trees by Proxy use proxies to elect legislatures, which then are
>>>>much like traditional legislatures.
>>I avoid the phrase "Delegable Proxy" because the usage is just
>>different enough that they had best be kept apart.
>>While a legislature is usually geographical, I do not demand that of such.
A village board had best be elected by village members. I have no desire,
need, nor intent to define districts within a village. Ditto for other
legislatures. I can imagine a legislature without a geographical
relationship, but have not pursued that thought.
>>>>Takes time for a proxy to become effective, or to lose effectiveness when
>>>>giver ends it.
Responding to Abd:
>>Here we have Abd talking without understanding the topic. I write
>>of time BECAUSE it is not appropriate for changes to take effect
>>before a deliberate delay after specifying such.
I believe reasonable delays encourage proxy givers to consider carefully
before changing proxy holders.
Legislatures NEED time to prepare for changes in proxy holding (and thus
in membership and power of members).
>>Another difference - my proxies have a monopoly on performing their tasks.
> Essentially, I've considered that, just as voters and proxies are
> free, so too are meetings, which can set their own rules. This
> actually is standard Robert's Rules.
Abd claims familiarity with Robert's Rules, as do I. I notice that a body
must obey laws, and any rules established for it by superior bodies. It
also may establish rules that cannot be too easily changed without serious
> Now, from his original post on "Trees by Proxy":
>> Tailor numbers as further thought dictates - I am just trying for
>> Juho's village, town, etc. are nominal goals for sizes - given 350
>>people they should be around 3 or 4 "villages".
This is based on what Juho offered, though I agree with Abd that they seem
a bit small.
Still, I agree with what Abd writes elsewhere, that a holder should have
few enough givers that communication is practical.
>> Borrow proxies fresh from corporate stockholder usage. Their
>>effectiveness starts at midnight 10 days after filing; ends 10 days after
>>a replacement is filed or signer dies.
The 10 days is not from corporate usage, but from what I write above about
need to avoid instant response.
>> Representatives, such as Juho's 5 from a village in a town
>>government, have power according to how many effective voter proxies they
>>hold, directly or indirectly:
>> Must hold 1% of a legislature's proxies to be able to vote there.
I do not object to someone holding a single proxy, yet I cannot see value
in a collection of such trying to be serious members of a board, even to
investing enough time listening to deliberations to be able to vote
>> Must hold 2% of a legislature's proxies to have full
>>capabilities of being a legislator - offering bills, debating, etc.
No magic in "2", but too many active members and they trip over each other.
>> Limit on voting power is 40% of proxies voted in any vote - no
I SAID "no czars allowed", though my "40" is merely a suggestion.
Responding to Abd's consensus - a chair's gavel is not made of muscle -
though the chair does properly respond when consensus among the members is
>> Sideways proxy - possible for representatives to be too weak
>>above. Such can pass what they hold to others for legislature
>>participation. This does not release anyone from the above limit, nor
>>does it affect what anyone passes up to others via proxies.
A village elder can pass up however many proxies are held to a town
trustee. This is partly for minority power, for elders from several
villages could combine to give their shared town trustee more muscle.
Proxies held give the elder powers discussed above in village government:
Holding enough, they can be active.
Holding too few, two or more can combine strengths to make one of
their number active in village government. While this could be called a
proxy, I see no reason to apply the same restrictions as are discussed above.
davek at clarityconnect.com people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
More information about the Election-Methods