[EM] Delegable proxy/cascade and killer apps

[Raph Frank]

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:32 PM, Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com> wrote:
> 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.

Well, your proposal is also method of organising.  A majority of the
population can probably change the US constitution (which is a hard to
change one), if they are organised and committed.

A solid majority of the population would likely be able to win a
majority in Congress (maybe even 2/3) and, unless it was highly
concentrated, a majority in a reasonably large number of States.

This allows you threaten to call a constitutional convention.  The
precedent is that as the number of States can send in the petition
gets close to the 2/3 required, Congress proposes the change.

Ofc, it would require years, and to hold a majority together for that
long is hard.

> The medium of a nation is a language.

Culture too.

> 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.

Vote buying could be an issue.  In fact, it is possibly the Achilles
Heal of the proxy system.

Encryption methods have the potential to overcome this, but they are
hard to explain and part of democracy is public trust in the system.

> 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.

I don't see much difference.

The advantage Napster had was that software is easily copied.  This
meant that the spark required was much smaller (an ember ?).

Also, even with a small number of people, it was worth using.  You
could use it to send files to friends.

>> 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.

Maybe.  I think that in an internet/website context, you are fighting
for time with alot of other websites.

People vote because there is a social/peer (RL) pressure to do so and
they feel civic responsibility.

You would need to try to encourage this feeling in people who
participate in your system.

This is kinda what I meant with killer app.

Look at http://www.fundable.com/

This is a company that is using the web to organise people.  If you
have 10 friends, they can use the service to all chip in $10 to buy a
birthday present for another friend.

They used to recommend that you only try for a small number of people
initially (like 10 people).  It doesn't seem to be in their faq
anymore.

Anyway, maybe it would be worth targeting smaller groups initially
rather than an entire city.

For example, it would be worth using your system for a sports club of
some kind.

If that turns out to be popular, then maybe some of those people would
use it for larger groups.

>> 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.

However, these benefits really only kick in when a reasonably large
number of people participate.  Even 5% of the city population might be
enough for it to start to kick in, as those people would influence
other people.

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

As the telephone ads say "It's good to talk".

>> 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.

Yes, but they have the advantage that they deploy real power.  A low
voter turnout doesn't diminish State power quite so directly.

Your system's power depends on people actually using it.

This means that people are willing to go to a polling station
specifically to vote.

>> 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.)

Maybe saying not real was unfair, but there is certainly a low turnout
(and some voter register fraud :p ).

> I may yet convince you to behave like a proper
> candidate.  If not, I will find a better one.  I can shift my vote.

Sounds like a lot of effort, I still haven't designated a proxy on Abd's list.

Speaking of which, the database for the RV free association is located here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/database

Maybe you could define a format that someone on yahoo groups could use
(or just use the range voting format) and then you can auto-extract
their tables every day or so.

This would allow you integrate the 2 systems.

Ofc, that would only add one more proxy, but would add 5 voters.

The big problem with the yahoo database method is that it requires
manual tallying.  I think that is kills the system before it has even
started.

>
>> 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.

The problem is that it an extra click for them to check how their vote
is going.

This may not be an issue if it was popular, as people would go to the
site specifically.

Alternatively, maybe you could have some way for websites to show the
vote totals in real time.  This would allow forums to incorporate your
site into their system.

Vbulletin forum software, for example, has a plugin system.  Anyone
can write modules and admins can install them on their site.  A plugin
that connects to your system somehow expands the potential user pool.
Ofc, you would need to convince forum owners to install your system.

One issue I have with their system is the constant need to redo the
plugins as people upgrade.  They aren't very good with backward
compatibility.

> 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."

Actually, now that I think about it, there was a website called wikocracy.org.

Basically, they had a wiki with various laws and people could edit
them.  The site went offline, but it was archived by the internet
archive at www.archive.org.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070523134207/wikocracy.com/wiki/index.php/US_Constitution,_Amendments

They got to the 77th amendment before it went offline.

It was kinda fun, I did some of the amendments :) (These may not be my
final versions).

31st -> Secession of States (modified someone else's)
http://web.archive.org/web/20070320003009/wikocracy.com/wiki/index.php/US_Constitution,_Thirty_First_Amendment

64th -> Change to limited liability (was a mod to someone else's
initial version banning companies completely)
http://web.archive.org/web/20061113094425/wikocracy.com/wiki/index.php/US_Constitution,_Sixty_Fourth_Amendment

66th -> Unenumerated rights
http://web.archive.org/web/20061113093645/wikocracy.com/wiki/index.php/US_Constitution,_Sixty_Sixth_Amendment

67th -> Equal share of taxes between all legislators
http://web.archive.org/web/20061113093225/wikocracy.com/wiki/index.php/US_Constitution,_Sixty_Seventh_Amendment

68th -> Supreme Court modifications
http://web.archive.org/web/20061113093104/wikocracy.com/wiki/index.php/US_Constitution,_Sixty_Eighth_Amendment

69th -> Dual President (2 Consuls)
http://web.archive.org/web/20061113093900/wikocracy.com/wiki/index.php/US_Constitution,_Sixty_Ninth_Amendment

That probably gives you info about my political views :p.

Could your system be integrated with a wiki system ?

The various drafts would move up and down the tree and each draft
would have a revision history.

A proxy would vote vote for X's draft version 2 and would be informed
when version 3 came out.

>> 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.

Ok, but ideally it should be possible for anyone to reform the
organisation if the admin does something crazy.

In theory everything could be centrally handled as long as the
database was exposed to the world.  For example, you might have lots
of html pages that can be parsed to generate the database.

If someone was to store all those pages and have your (open source)
software, they should be able to recreate your site.  Your software
might even poll other sites and do periodic backups.

>
>> ... 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).

You could in theory have multiple roots.

>
>> 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.

I think the free association/proxy system has potential, but has so
many potential problems.

My big concern is the incentive to participate (in case you haven't
notices :) ).

The point of participation is to have some change in the real world.
This means that you need some way to verify that the people you are
talking to (and possibly compromising with) are actually capable of
fulfilling their side of the bargain.

If they do turn out to be all talk, you can de-rate any commitments
that they give at a later time.  This acts an incentive for them to go
through with their side of the bargain.

This needs to be formalised.  It could be as simple as an ebay
reputation system, or just allowing reputation to flow through the
proxy links.  If I vouch for someone and he doesn't come through, I
should take a reputation hit too (and also probably reduce my trust in
the person who vouched for him to me).