[EM] Delegable proxy/cascade and killer apps

[Michael Allan]

Raph Frank wrote:
> Michael Allan wrote:
> > ... The faults or failings in democracy are located outside of
> > state institutions. ... The fixes and changes are needed
> > elsewhere.
> 
> Right, if the people are organised, they can change the constitution.

That brings to mind organizations like political parties.  We already
have those.  So either we need a different kind of organization, or
some other way for people to coordinate themselves.

Consider a medium.  Consider coordination at the largest scales, like
a whole nation, or an economy.  The medium of a nation is a language.
The medium of an economy is a currency.  What is the medium of a
democracy?

It ought to be voting, right?  But voting is highly restricted.
Unlike languages and currencies, it is only available on special
occaisions.  Once every four years or so it's rolled out, then
immediately withdrawn.  In the case of legislation, access is
permanently withdrawn.  We cannot vote on laws.

Maybe we need to lift the restrictions.  Just let people vote.  It
ought to be as simple as tossing coins on the counter, and as natural
and ubiquitous as a language.

> > ... we have other networks that grew from small beginnings, pretty
> > much on their own (file sharing for instance).
> 
> However, the internet didn't just appear...

True, and I agree about DARPA and all.  But I was speaking of overlay
networks like Napster.  They grew from tiny beginnings.  Their growth
was pulled by the users, rather than pushed by the providers.

> > If they get what democracy promises, and modern democracy denies -
> > participation and freedom of choice - that would be enough for a
> > killer app.
> 
> No, it wouldn't.
> 
> The world is made up of individuals, you need to show that individuals
> benefit from joining.  If I don't join, then I get most of the
> benefits and if it fails, I haven't wasted my time.

Except that a different rationale can take hold in a social context.
So the benefit to pitch is the social context itself?  OK, no argument
there.

> You need to show what is in it for potential members.  For the system
> to grow, it has to create an incentive for people to join and also for
> current members not to leave.

I meant "freedom of choice" in politics, not just in the app.  When
you can vote for anyone - your next door neighbour, if you want - then
that's a benefit.  It's a benefit that is otherwise denied.

I meant "participation" in politics, not just in the app.  When you
receive a vote, you become a politician (at some level).  If you
receive a hundred votes or so from your neighbours, you are a
political leader with a constituency.  These are real benefits
otherwise denied to the budding politician.

Still, you are right.  The app must prove that it can deliver these
benefits.

> Well, I am clearly not a citizen of 'ward-20' :).  Also, it does
> highlight the issue.  There is little benefit to me personally from
> participating.

It's unfair of me to expect you to pretend that you live in Toronto.
When Votorola (or equivalent) is installed where you live, it will be
different.  When you receive a vote, it will mean something.  It will
be a compliment, and a measure of political support, "I think you have
more leadership potential than I do, so here's my vote."  And a
request for information, "So tell me, who ought to be Mayor?"

By your own vote, you could answer, "Well, it probably shouldn't be
me.  But X is no slouch in these matters.  Let's ask X."

And so you cast a vote (actually it's become 2 votes now) for X.  Then
both of you await the answer.  It's an important question, and there's
nowhere else to get the answer.  So that's a benefit.
 
> OTOH, I am "wasting" my time posting to this list, so people will
> spend some time discussing stuff that is interesting.

You're obeying what they call "communicative rationality".  You're no
less rational for that.  Just human.  ;)

> Your system is currently a pure vote tabulator, maybe a forum of some
> kind would help (in fact even a comments section would be helpful).

An electoral system doesn't need those, not as part of it.  The
state's polling stations have no built-in discussion forums.  The
state's ballots have no spaces for comments.  Their's is just a "pure
vote tabulator".  Our's too.

> Who are the candidates and what do they stand for.

Everyone in Ward 20 (plus you) are technically candidates, because I
can vote for all of you.

If I'm unsure what someone stands for, I'll just vote for him.  I'll
go into the forum where he hangs out, and I'll say, "I just voted for
you, as City Councillor.  What do you think of that?"  Then I'll watch
his reaction.  I can learn a lot, that way.

Once they realize what's going on, political hopefuls and their
supporters won't remain in hiding.  They'll be looking for votes.
They'll provide up-front info.  They'll recruit new voters (as you
suggested).

> In any case, if it were real, I would probably wait for some others to
> get involved before voting and that is not a good sign.  With a forum
> at least I could partially participate until I am ready to assign a
> vote.  With your system, I don't leave any mark that shows to others
> that somebody was looking at the site.

It *is* real.  The system is live.  That was the first vote, of the
first election.  On the other hand, seeking candidates for Toronto
City Council in Ireland is probably not the way to start.  (I have
learned something.)

And you are already "partially participating" in the election, via
this mailing list.  I may yet convince you to behave like a proper
candidate.  If not, I will find a better one.  I can shift my vote.

> People go to discussion websites because others also go to them ...
> again a networking effect.  Don't let users leave (or in our more
> freedom inspired times, give them a reason to stay or at least check
> the site every few days :) ).

Let them stay talking in their discussion forums, or over their
phones, or backyard fences.  It's the talk that matters.  Later, when
it leads them to a decision, they can vote through whatever interface
is close at hand (Web, email, others in future).  Then carry on with
talking, or whatever their business is.

> I also notice that you have a doubting system.  Not sure how it works,
> but I assume it is for sock puppets.

Yes, it's part of the trust network.  It enables people to
cross-authenticate their neighbourhood voter lists.

> Ofc, this is true for all web-sites.  It is hard to get people to
> actually join yours.  There are so many seeking people's time.
> ... first, you need a reason for the first few people to actually
> join and stay joined.

When it's time to "ignite" it, in a month or so, there's a sort of
barbeque starter we could employ.  It works like this.  We get copies
of the bylaws on City Council's agenda, and we open them to voting.
If there's anything controversial in there, anything divisive, it'll
stir up voters on both sides of the issue.  That ought to ignite it.

If the current bylaws are all snoozers and don't ignite anything,
there's a kind of flame-thrower we'd have in reserve.  We could get a
copy of the City's tax code, and open that up.  So we'd have a whole
bunch of different versions of the tax code being drafted, and people
voting for one or another of them.  "Just a quiet tax redistribution.
Shhh, don't tell anyone in Rosedale."

I think we can do that, maybe in another month.  (BTW, does anyone
want to install Votorola in their own city or region, and test out the
ignition system?)

> The problem is that (assuming it actually works :) ), once the system
> is in place it is hard to change.
> 
> If you give power to certain groups of people, then they will resist
> changing it to give more freedom.
> 
> However, you can add these rules in at the start, and there is no
> interest group to stop you.
> 
> Also, you could implement the first version with everything handled
> centrally, but still that the standard/rules requires that everything
> is made public.

Because it's locally installed (city or region), and because it's open
source, I figure it's safe from abuse.  Local residents will sort out
any problems.
 
> ... there can be issues with sock puppets.  This is in fact one of
> the main issues raised with the delegable proxy system.  Someone
> could create lots of accounts and then have them all direct votes to
> him.
> 
> You need some way to protect against it.

Yes.  My trust network isn't as general-purpose as your own design
sketch.  It's specialized for the neighbourhood scale.  Near
neighbours cross-authenticate by extending trust edges amongst each
other.  They police their own voter lists.  They're supported by a
backbone of elected and appointed registrars, and the whole is
anchored in the electoral office (root of all trust).  I'll post the
design for comments later.  It isn't properly documented yet.
 
> You might for example be a high level trust proxy and go to the
> trouble of verifying street addresses, then lots of people would link
> to you.

Yes, I like the openess of your design sketch.  I like being able to
dial a voter list with my own authentication criteria.  My design
supports that too, but only by exposing the raw data of the voter
register through a special synch interface.  External sites can then
compile a voter list from the raw data, according to their own
criteria.  They can then make it available as a service to users.
(Same for the election results.)  But the design has yet to be worked
out in detail.  I don't need any of that for a beta.
 
> > They had unlisted telephone numbers in the old days, but most people
> > were "in the book".  Every couple of years they posted the voter lists
> > around the neighbourhood...
> 
> True, but those lists weren't internet subject to internet data mining.

True, it might never be the same again.  Exposure of residential
addresses might be the biggest hurdle to participation.  We may need
to install privacy screens, limiting exposure to near neighbours and
registrars.  Email obsfucation too, I suppose.

-- 
Michael Allan

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