[EM] Advanced Voting Systems

[Michael Allan]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

> The wayback machine for BeyondPolitics.org should have most of the older 
> stuff.
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://beyondpolitics.org

2003 then.  I can't find an earlier description of recursive
delegation + continuous recast.  So I cite you in these footnotes:

  http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/theory.xht#fn-1

  http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/theory.xht#fn-8

> Some writers have been concerned about proxy loops, but I consider them 
> unavoidable, in the first place (the alternative implies a superproxy, one 
> person who represents everyone, which *might* be dangerous!), with the harm 
> limited to lack of representation in some discussions, a situation which is 
> easily remediable if the members of the loop want to remedy it.

I've discovered that cycles in vote flow may be useful, as illustrated
in these 4 figures:

  http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/theory.xht#figure-10

(I'll finish the text in a few days.)

>> > Carroll was the first I know of to propose votes transferable by
>> > the first preference candidate...
>>
>> And if I understand, that entails *recursive* transfer?  I'll need a
>> source for that, too.  I'd better read Carroll...
>
> No, it doesn't imply delegable proxy, itself...

I'll read him and see what he says.  I'll send you a copy if the
librarian lets me.

> And who would want to be represented by someone who one can't raise on the 
> phone, or sit down and chat with in an office or elsewhere? ...
>
> My proxy would understand! And would know whom, on the next level up 
> (levels informally appear with DP), to talk with, perhaps, but not limited 
> to, his or her own proxy. And so on. An idea would rise until it meets 
> *cogent* objection, which would then go back down, always through 
> relationships of rapport. I'd get an answer, quite possible an answer that 
> would show me why my great idea wasn't. But if my idea is really sound, I 
> might be able to answer the objection, convince my proxy -- if I can't 
> convince my proxy, who in the world *can* I convince? -- and thus the idea 
> goes back up, this time with a persistence marker which will slightly 
> increase attention.

The idea is definitely compelling.  So we ought to implement it.

> It's little less than mass intelligence, a device for "thinking" on a large 
> scale. And that's a lot more important than voting! Voting is just about 
> the outcome....

Yet it all depends on the voting system.  There is no communication
channel without recursive delegation.  And nobody will be listening
without continuous recast.  So we need to code the voting system.

-- 
Michael Allan

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