[EM] Trees by Proxy

[Dave Ketchum]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:33:03 -0400 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

> At 11:41 PM 3/24/2007, Dave Ketchum wrote:
> I accept Abd's suggestion to discard his words whenever they conflict 
> with my goals.
> 

And would discard less if he could recognize the goal of this thread:

> 
>>TO OTHERS!  I welcome attempts at contributing toward using proxies 
>>to improve quality of legislatures.
>>

Thinking of implementation, the goal is to start with village and go as 
far up as becomes agreeable - though I talk only of village and town as 
enough to enable discussing ideas.

Perhaps:
      Agree to try a village.
      Get permissions and agreements.
      Allow giving proxies, but with only present elders as holders, and 
none taking effect.
      With enough ready to take effect to have at least most of current 
elders ready to continue on board, activate these proxies.
      Now board is occupied by proxy holders and acting under them.  So 
permit voters to give proxies to whoever they choose, meaning membership 
of board can change as they act.
      To try a town needs at least most of its villages active, and then 
to do similar startup.
      Likewise for county as next step.

> 
>>>>    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.
> 
>>I believe reasonable delays encourage proxy givers to consider 
>>carefully before changing proxy holders.
Abd objects, but no convincingly.  Anyway, the next par. matters more.
> 
>>Legislatures NEED time to prepare for changes in proxy holding (and 
>>thus in membership and power of members).


If a legislature annoys the voters enough, they can do a mass replacement.

With ordinary elections we can do such replacement when annoyed enough - 
but in neither case should the new legislators be acting before they have 
had time to digest their winning.

Responding to Abd with a clarification on time:

If a change in proxies means a legislator loses floor rights tomorrow, 
tomorrow is when those changes affect his voting power.

> 
>>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 thought.


To Abd:  Sure, the US Senate has less laws to obey than village boards - 
SO WHAT?

A quick glance at Robert's Rules:

Bylaws HAD BETTER see to requiring a quorum.

They BETTER say something like the paragraph I quote:  "These bylaws may 
be amended at any regular meeting of the Society by a two-thirds vote, 
provided that the amendment has been submitted in writing at the previous 
regular meeting."

That combination does not prevent stupidity such as setting quorum=1, but 
it does prevent a wannabe czar from doing such without permission.

> 
>>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 intelligently.


Assuming there is someone holding a single proxy who is ready to 
contribute usefully, their obvious next step is to get to hold enough 
proxies to demonstrate backing.

> 
>>>>           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
>>>>czars allowed.
>>>>
>>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 recognizable.


Abd talks of "majority consent" as if not noticing that a holder of 51% of 
the proxies would be, by that, a majority.

> 
>>>>           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.


Abd objects, but I see no useful response.

-- 
  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.