[EM] Continuous elections and their interplay with power structures

[Michael Allan]

Juho wrote:
> Ok, in a stable system with well established connections between "nodes" 
> that stability will increase. I was concerned about the ability of 
> individuals to move large masses of votes (larger than what they got 
> directly in the election) by just their own individual decision. Maybe the 
> misuse of such power (e.g. changing one's opinion just before an important 
> election) should be eliminated somehow.

In the scenario, there are two main elections to consider: office of
mayor (1), and park improvement plan (2).  Both are potentially
susceptible to misuse.

(1).  For the mayoral election, the crucial thing is there's two
electoral systems:

  i) continuous system (public sphere's), reporting results daily or
     hourly

 ii) discontinuous system (City's), reporting results every 4 years
     or so

There is no formal coupling between the two.  All coupling is mediated
by the individual voters.  For example (referring to the tree figure),
L's current vote in the continuous election is:

  L > M > N > X

On election day, L will probably cast her official vote for X.
Effectively she will be translating a continuous e-vote (i), into a
one-shot ballot (ii).  This kind of manual intermediation will prevent
misuse, I think.

What happens if N switches her vote to J at the last minute, hoping to
pull off a coup?  It seems unlikely to affect L's choice.  She will
already have considered her options, and made up her mind for X.  So I
doubt it will be a problem, in this case.

(2).  The park improvement plan is different.  The scenario only
covers the initial safety inspection.  Later, a final plan will have
to be decided on.  Mae will have to judge when the consensus is strong
enough.  She will then talk to the leading drafter at the root of the
cascade (X).  With her permission, a copy of X's consensus draft will
be "frozen".  X will no longer be able to modify it.  But voters will
remain free to shift their votes from X to other drafts, such as J's.
This cooling off period will prevent any last minute abuse of the
consensus.

At the end of the cooling off period, if Mae judges the frozen plan
has retained a sufficient consensus, then she'll pass it to her
Mayoral delegate for final approval from City Hall.

The final plan will not be cast in stone.  Even if it is approved and
work commences on site, the election is going to continue all the same
- plans often need amendment, of course.  (Similar procedures of
staged acceptance, cooling off, and amendment can be applied to other
types of norm election - for legislation, policy documents, and so
forth.)

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, 647-436-4521
http://zelea.com/