[EM] Delegable proxy/cascade and killer apps

[Michael Allan]

Raph Frank wrote:

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

Vote buying will be a poor investment.  The votes are too shifty.
Voters will take the money and run: they'll take it from one side,
then shift their votes and take it from the other.

> > But I was speaking of overlay networks like Napster...

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

Yes, that's the key.  It's free of scale dependencies.  Same for open
voting (though I haven't been able to convince you).
 
> 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.

Again, you are suggesting this because you are concerned about a
network effect.  I believe it's scale free.  If a sports club is
roughly equivalent to a city, except smaller, then I want the city.
Why test on a rough equivalent, when I can test on the real thing?

> 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.

The nature of the benefits may change with scale, but I figure that at
least some benefits will be present at all scales.  I imagine stages
of succession, like an ecosystem, with different mixes of people as it
matures.

A threshold of 5% of the population is rather high as an estimate.
Commercial polls are not based on such large samples.  But the news
media routinely report them.  When they discover there's a continuous
poll running 24x7, it'll make the news.  By reporting on it, they'll
drive up its participation.  It's in their interest.
 
> > 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.

I don't know if a discussion forum is a good substitute for a power
connection.  But maybe there's no need for a substitute.  Since the
state's system already has a power connection, let's use theirs.

Only one connection to power is needed.  The open candidates can carry
their electoral support over to the state system.  They can appear on
its ballot.  Some of them will be appearing for the umpteenth time as
fringe party candidates (though never before with prior, proven
electoral support).  People are going to be aware long in advance - it
will be in each candidate's interest to remind them - that the issue
is real power.
 
> Maybe saying not real was unfair, but there is certainly a low turnout
> (and some voter register fraud :p ).

I just started the server few days ago.  Nobody in Toronto is aware of
it.  It's not time, yet.

(Unfair.  In your own design sketch, you did not *preclude* sock
puppets.  Rather you had different trust levels for viewing the
electoral data.  Same here.  The current level is zero, for testing.
The sock puppet is visible, but it's clearly marked as being
untrustworthy.)
 
> 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...
>
> Alternatively, maybe you could have some way for websites to show the
> vote totals in real time...

Yes, thanks for suggesting.  I have to look at that.  Different voting
interfaces are possible as add-ons.

> It was kinda fun, I did some of the amendments :) (These may not be my
> final versions)...
> 
> That probably gives you info about my political views :p.

  http://web.archive.org/web/20061113083043/wikocracy.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

Was it purely a drafting medium?  No voting?

> 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.

So you understand there are multiple candidate drafts in parallel?
Your suggestion is to open the drafts to input via a Wiki?  I guess
this is supported.  The candidate drafts are stored by the drafters
themselves, so the form of storage is up to them.  They could post
them as static Web pages (single author), or as Wiki pages (multiple
authors).

Wikis are push media.  Drafters might prefer to pull information by
copying it from other drafters.  They will be especially interested in
the drafts of their voters, if they have any.  Text will flow in the
same channels as the votes.  Deep in the cascade, everyone will be a
drafter.  I was thinking the most natural drafting medium to support
this is recombinant text:

   http://zelea.com/project/textbender/d/overview.xht

But maybe I am wrong, maybe a Wiki will work.  What if the
candidate-drafter provided write-access to her immediate voters?  The
voters could submit text, and she could be editor in chief.

Distortion and suppression are problems.  Ideas of the voter-drafters
would not be expressed as they had intended.  They would be edited.
They would thus be hidden from view, and effectively suppressed.

But suppose the voter-drafter had her own Wiki too, in which *she* was
editor in chief?  Then she'd have freedom of expression there ("what
*I* think the law ought to be"), and only editing privledges in the
candidate draft ("what my candidate thinks").

This is interesting, a cascade of Wikis.  Text would flow as usual
from voter-drafter to candidate-drafter, and so on, down to the
consensus drafts.  But it would be pushed at each step rather than
pulled.  Maybe push is OK.  Some things I like about it:

   i) Voter-drafters are motivated anyway to push text into the
      candidate draft, one step closer to consensus, so why not let
      them?  Why make them wait for a pull?

  ii) Authorship of voter-drafters is formally acknowledged in the Wiki
      history of the candidate draft.

 iii) The tools are off-shelf.  No need to code anything.

> > 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.

Yes.  In the beta release, all of the electoral data will be public
for verification purposes.  The same data will suffice to fork the
electoral server, as a last resort.
 
> I think the free association/proxy system has potential, but has so
> many potential problems.
 
The problems aren't many.  Only the participation levels remain to be
answered.

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

I'm more worried about usability as a barrier.  In any case, the
general solution to low turnout is: 1) identify the cause, and 2)
correct it.  It's all a part of the development process.  We're not
stuck.  The current causes of low turnout are: it's only an alpha
release, the server is 3 days old, and nobody knows it's running.  So
I'll work on the corrections for those.
 
> 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).

I guess that's the purpose of the electoral system.  If you disappoint
your voters and don't answer for it, you'll lose their votes.  It will
happen immediately.  (Frankly, I'm fed up with your performance in the
Council elections.  You've just lost my vote. ;)

  http://t.zelea.com:8080/v/w/

-- 
Michael Allan

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