[EM] Delegate cascade and proportional representation

[Raph Frank]

On 8/25/08, Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com> wrote:
> I like that rule better, because it factors out the loop - the one
>  thing shared by all of its members.  I guess it's still not fair,
>  because it assumes that the loop is meaningless (that assent is not
>  really uniform within it), or that it was intended to be unravelled in
>  this manner.

I guess it is trying to eliminate the disincentive to actually vote
for someone.

It also depends on what the votes are actually being used for.  If
they are being used to decide on PR seats, then it matters if you are
the root or not.

Also, it was looking at it from the perspective that certain nodes
bring votes (and associated seats) into the loop and thus would be
entitled to receive seats.

A vote is almost saying "If I don't have enough votes for a seat, then
I want to help this other person to receive a seat".

>  Here the central delegates withdraw their votes from an incumbent
>  office holder (root), in order to form a loop with each other.  Kind
>  of like bees swarming to decide on a new hive, except here they're
>  swarming to decide on a new candidate for office.  It will be a loop
>  like above, but with a massive inflow of votes entering from all
>  member nodes.  By common agreement, the weakest of the contributors
>  will be ejected from the loop, one by one - only to become the
>  kingmakers, as they re-direct their votes back in.  So the delegates
>  will be applying your rule, but in reverse - ejecting the weakest
>  first.  They'll also be ejecting any reluctant ones, at their own
>  request; and any ill-disciplined ones, who happen to break the rules
>  of the decision game.

Well, if my rule is in effect, then candidates can start negotiating
with each other in order to decide on a root node.

If there is a small number, maybe they would just arrange a meeting in
a 'smoky room' and decide which one of them they will all vote for.

If the rule is that the candidate who brings the most votes into the
ring being declared the winner/ring's representative, then there is an
incentive for members of the loop to contract the loop.

For example, if part of the loop is

->A->B->C->D->

B and C could talk to each other (C is B's delegate after all).

They could then reorganise to give

->A->B->D
     ^
     C

This means that B is now considered to to have brought in its own
supporters, but also C's supporters.  This means that their 'faction'
in the loop has increased in standing.

Alternatively, B could ask A to redesignate C as his delegate.

->A->C->D
     ^
     B

This is the same as before, except that C is the one that remains in the loop.

Probably, which one to use would be decided by which one of B and C
has the most votes (and also would require that A consent to use
option 2)

Eventually, that process could reduce the loop to a single person.