[Election-Methods] "Town E-meetings" for encouraging group intelligence and working toward consensus

[Terry Bouricius]

Ralph and all,

As you responded to Jan Koch's E-Meeting idea, I'd like to offer responses 
to a couple of your ideas (a tangent of a tangent).

1. The idea of a citizen jury is well worth pursuing. As many people on 
this list are probably aware, there was actually a successful use of this 
model in British Columbia dealing specifically with how best to change the 
voting method there. This citizens assembly drawn by lot was created by 
the Provincial government, and resulted in a provincial referendum. The 
assembly's web site has lots of information...at 
http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public

Ontario used the citizens jury model as well.

There was also an attempt to get a bill passed in California to use such a 
citizens jury for examining voting methods in California.

2. As to taking action in regards to Fort Collins...Fundamentally, I 
believe election method reformers should NOT form circular firing 
squads...That is, advocates of Approval or Range, etc. should NOT insert 
themselves into places where a campaign for IRV is under way, just as 
advocates of IRV or Condorcet should not go into a community where there 
is a campaign for Approval. The more experiments with a variety of 
alternative voting methods the better. By raising one-sided objections to 
any particular reform proposal that is being seriously considered, the net 
effect is most likely to be to shore up the status quo, rather than to 
advance one's favored method. If election method experts put their united 
effort into explaining why current plurality voting is bad, rather than 
attacking other election reformers' efforts, we would all be better off. 
That is not to say, of course, that we shouldn't continue this thoughtful 
behind the scenes discussion about pros and cons of various methods.

Terry Bouricius


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ralph Suter" <RLSuter at aol.com>
To: "Election Methods Mailing List" <election-methods at electorama.com>; 
<RangeVoting at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Election-Methods] "Town E-meetings" for encouraging group 
intelligence and working toward consensus


Jan Kok's detailed, carefully-thought-out Town E-meeting proposal
deserves a thoughtful response. I regret that this one has to be so
negative, but I believe that for the following two reasons, the
proposal is not a good way to respond to the effort in Fort Collins to
replace plurality voting with IRV. As explained below, I believe there
are better ways.

* Some elements of the proposal, particularly the concept of delegable
proxy (DP), are themselves very controversial, or they would be if
they were to attract very widespread attention and discussion. I, for
one, am not persuaded that DP is is either a very good idea or a very
practical one. I won't detail my concerns with DP here and don't want
(and don't have time) to get into a debate about it. But my guess
(which of course could be wrong) is that the DP concept and possibly
other elements of the proposal would generate controversy that would
seriously interfere with the more important Fort Collins voting method
controversy that the proposal is intended to help resolve.

* In addition to its controversial elements, the proposal is too
complicated and involves too many new ideas to have much hope of being
set up and promoted quickly enough to soon attract many participants,
especially among Fort Collins residents. If the Fort Collins voting
method controversy is at all urgent -- that is, if there is a
possibility that IRV could be adopted very soon, say within the next
year -- the proposed town E-meeting probably can't be set up quickly
enough to have a good chance of playing an influential role in the
controversy (though it could be very valuable as a way to test the
viability of the E-meeting concept and gather data that could help
change the minds of people who are skeptical about DP or other
controversial elements of the proposal).

Here are some alternatives to the town E-meeting proposal as a way to
address the Fort Collins voting method issue.

* Form a local committee or organization aimed at challenging the IRV
initiative and advocating the consideration of alternative voting
methods. It would not need to commit itself to a particular
alternative to IRV and would not need to be adamantly opposed to IRV.
To the contrary, I think such an organization would be most effective
if its main goal were to insure that concerns about IRV and
alternatives to IRV (and concerns about them) be adequately discussed
before IRV or any other new voting method is adopted. This could begin
as an ad hoc Fort Collins committee, but if it goes well, it could
conceivably evolve into a national organization to promote better
voting methods. I for one would be very interested in supporting such
an organization and would welcome it as an alternative to FairVote and
the other aggressively pro-IRV organizations that now overwhelmingly
dominate the discussion of alternative voting methods in the U.S.

* Instead of a town E-meeting, why not a regular town meeting, or a
series of them? Fort Collins is a small enough city (just over
100,000) that in-person meetings aimed at attracting fairly large and
diverse numbers of attendees are much more feasible than they would be
in a much larger city such as Los Angeles, where an effort to get IRV
adopted is also now being made. While town meetings would certainly be
possible in L.A. as well, a much greater and better coordinated effort
would need to be made to promote them and persuade L.A. media to
adequately cover them. Also, while an L.A. town meeting effort
probably would require raising money and hiring paid organizers, it
should be possible to organize town hall meetings in Fort Collins with
volunteers and little or no fund-raising.

* Another good alternative to a town E-meeting would be to organize a
representative "citizens jury" of Fort Collins citizens who would be
asked to carefully consider and make recommendations regarding IRV and
other alternative voting methods. Unlike delegable proxy, there is a
long history, in the U.S. and in many other countries, of
experimentation with the citizens jury concept, and such juries have
had impacts on actual elections and other civic controversies. For
more information, see the following:

Descriptions of the Citizens Jury Process:
http://www.jefferson-center.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={2BD10C3C-90AF-438C-B04F-88682B6393BE}
http://www.thataway.org/exchange/resources.php?action=view&rid=1580

Organizations:
http://www.jefferson-center.org/
Jefferson Center -- an organization that formally experimented with
and conducted citizens juries between 1974 and 2002. The idea has
since been adopted in many other countries but has attracted less
enthusiasm among government officials in the U.S. Because of
insufficient funding and other reasons, the organization had had to
suspend its activities in 2002, but the website still provides a lot
of valuable information, and there is an email address to contact the
center's founder, Ned Crosby, who may be very interested in advising
or even helping set up a Fort Collins citizens jury re the IRV
controversy.

http://www.thataway.org/
National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation -- an organization
that advocates a much wider range of methods (including but not
limited to citizens juries) for achieving the goal, as Jan put it in
his subject line, of "encouraging group intelligence and working
toward consensus".

-Ralph Suter



In a message dated 7/9/08, Jan Kok wrote:
> Right now I feel like I've been struck with divine inspiration. Hope I
> don't wake up tomorrow feeling like an idiot. :-)
>
> "Town E-meeting" is a way to
> - disseminate information about competing proposals
> - allow a controlled debate and negotiation among supporters of the
> various proposals
> - allow/encourage supporters to "present their case" as strongly as
> possible, but providing a rebuttal mechanism that encourages honest
> arguments and discourages insincere, deceptive arguments
> - allow similar proposals without much redundant arguments (because
> proposals can refer to each other.)
> - allow similar proposals while neither encouraging nor discouraging
> their creation
> - does all that in a manner that is fair and neutral toward all 
> proposals.
>
> It's similar in some ways to a court trial, where we strive to allow
> all parties to be fairly represented and heard. It's an application of
> FADP*. It also borrows infrastructure and culture from Wikipedia.
>
> (FADP: Free Association with Delegable Proxy. See
> http://beyondpolitics.org for an introduction. There is a FAQ at
> http://www.beyondpolitics.org/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=BeyondPolitics,
> and a glossary of FADP terms at
> http://www.beyondpolitics.org/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Glossary . The
> Glossary is also a mini-tutorial about FADP concepts.)
>
> Town E-meeting was inspired by this current, real-life situation:
> There is a movement to try to replace the voting method used for Fort
> Collins, CO elections with IRV. (Currently, Fort Collins elections use
> single-round Plurality Voting.) I would much rather have Range,
> Approval, or ER-Bucklin Voting, rather than IRV. How can I get the
> word out about those alternatives? How can I get the alternatives
> compared side-by-side in a fair manner? How can I promote multiple
> alternatives (proposals) without risking a "vote-splitting" effect
> among the alternatives? How can I encourage an honest discussion among
> backers of the various alternatives, to try to reach consensus about
> which is the best alternative?
>
> My proposed solution is a combination of several elements. I'm calling
> this generic solution "Town E-meeting" for now. (Feel free to suggest
> other names.)
>
> - Create an FADP. (E.g. the Fort Collins Voting Free Association. It's
> purpose would be "To facilitate discussion of alternative proposals
> for the future of voting in Fort Collins.")
>
> - Anyone can become a member simply by signing up at a web site. There
> are two types of members: local voters, and other interested people.
> When polls are taken of the members, the votes of local voters and
> others are tallied and reported separately.
>
> - In order to participate in polls, members must agree to have this
> info about themselves be published in a publically accessable
> membership directory: real name, city/state, registered voter (y/n) in
> the city of interest (e.g. Fort Collins), member's proxy, accepting
> clients (y/n). (Publishing that information, and holding proxies
> accountable for verifying that their clients are real people,
> discourages creation of sock puppets.)
>
> - By default, all voting information related to polls conducted within
> the FA is public. Anyone can look up any member's voting history on
> any or all issues, or list out how each member voted (directly, or by
> proxy) on any issue.
>
> - There is a web site for the FA's use, featuring a wiki that is used
> for describing various proposals, listing and discussing pros and
> cons, etc.
>
> - Certain designated top proxies may edit the wiki. They may also
> grant and revoke editing privileges to their clients. Those new
> editors may grant and revoke editing privileges to their clients, and
> so on. This method of controlling editing privileges creates chains of
> accountability and encourages responsible, civilized editing behavior.
>
> - The wiki home page has a list of proposals. (E.g. Approval, Range,
> IRV, Top-2 (Delayed) Runoff, Proportional Representation for the city
> council seats, NOTA (i.e. keep Plurality Voting)) The proposals are
> listed as title and brief description. The titles are links to wiki
> pages fully describing the proposals.
>
> - There is an ongoing, real-time poll concerning the proposals. Each
> proposal has a poll score listed next to it. (How the score would be
> computed is not specified yet.)
>
> - The proposals are listed in the order that they would be chosen by a
> proportional representation method. The intent is to present a variety
> of proposals among the first few entries; to minimize the incentive to
> create clone proposals; and to avoid having any one person (a
> "dictator") determine the ordering of the proposals - rather, the
> ordering is a group decision based on members' votes.
>
> - In order to avoid favoritism toward either rating- or ranking-based
> polls, members can choose whichever they want. Those who choose to use
> ratings get the proposals sorted by Reweighted Range Voting (RRV).
> Those who choose to use ranking get the proposals sorted by Single
> Transferrable Vote (STV). Functions for converting ratings to rankings
> and vice versa are needed so that all votes are used by both sorting
> methods. (Maybe allow Proportional Approval Voting as a third voting
> method option?)
>
> - Each wiki page has an owner who may express a point of view on his
> page. Those who wish to provide rebuttal are allowed to do so using
> certain formatting and with certain restrictions, to be established.
> For example, each "pro" paragraph in the article could be followed by
> a rebuttal paragraph, indented and in italics. The inserted rebuttal
> paragraphs could be limited to 500 characters, and could be in-line
> text, links to other wiki pages, references to footnotes at the bottom
> of the current page, or combinations. Rebuttal paragraphs could be
> followed by rebuttals to the rebuttals, but limited to 100 characters.
>
> ----------------
>
> So, what do you think, folks? I would love to have a Town E-meeting
> web site for the Fort Collins Voting Free Association, as soon as
> possible. Any volunteers to help with this?
>
> Augustin Masquilier has done some pioneering work on his web site
> (minguo.info/usa) by creating some Drupal modules to support a version
> of Delegable Proxy. I am very grateful for Augustin's work. However, I
> really don't like Drupal itself, very much. For some reason I find
> navigation in Drupal sites confusing. I would prefer to use MediaWiki.
>
> I suspect we can find someone who would be willing to provide hosting
> for the Fort Collins Voting FA, and provide MediaWiki on the site as
> well.
>
> What's mainly missing is some WikiMedia modules to support Delegable
> Proxy, RRV, STV and so on to provide the features described above.
>
> Some work is needed to tune up my idea about using PR methods to sort
> proposals, to minimize problems with clone proposals, and also to
> handle "no opinion" votes which would occur when new proposals are
> added.
>
> Some style macros (not sure if that's a proper term for them) might be
> useful to support creating rebuttals.
>
> Is there a way to share content between the Fort Collins Voting FA
> and, say, an Aspen Voting FA, or other city Voting FA?
>
> Some help with creating content for the Fort Collins Voting FA would be 
> great.
>
> Any volunteers?
>
> Cheers,
> - Jan
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info