[EM] the 'who' and the 'what'

[Michael Allan]

Good morning Fred,

> ... My immediate concern is how candidates are evaluated.  Do voters
> decide based on candidates' stated positions or is there a mechanism
> for examining candidates to establish their bona fides?

I guess there are two classes of evaluative mechanisms:

   a) Election results (internal to the system).

   b) Other mechanisms (external).

(a).  The elections are themselves an evaluative medium.  The
elections are continuous, and the results are reported at frequent
intervals.  Votes are expected to shift as new information is revealed
to the voters.

(b).  But unless we take Marshall McLuhan at his word, a medium cannot
be an ultimate source of information.  The election results can only
be meaningful if they are backed by external sources.  (This is maybe
the point of your Q.)  External sources are:

   i) Dialogue and discourse in the public sphere.

  ii) Voting close to home, for somebody you know.

 iii) Voting for a norm, the text of which is visible.

(i).  The same communication channels that traffic in information
about ordinary elections are also available for open elections.  So
voters have access to mailing lists and chat networks, blogs and
broadcast media.  They can use these media to share information and
arguments about the candidates.

(ii).  The immediate recipient of the vote (voter's own delegate) can
be evaluated by personal aquaintance.  Because there are no formal
candidates and no constraints on choice, a participant is free to vote
for anyone.  She can therefore cast her vote "close to home",
supporting someone she knows and trusts.  Her vote will then cascade
through a series of delegates, and ultimately reach an end candidate.
None of these other people will be known to her personally.  Only her
own delegate will be known to her.  But whenever she has a question or
a concern, she can direct it to the delegate.  She can use the
delegate as a kind of 2-way communication channel into the election.
If she does not get a satisfactory answer, she can consider shifting
her vote.  In this way, voters can evaluate both the delegates and the
candidates.

(iii).  In a norm election (law, plan, policy), the voter can inspect
the actual text of the candidate norm - the particular variant draft
that she is voting for.  (I'm calling this an external mechanism
because the drafts are not actually stored in the system.  Only the
votes are stored in the system.  The drafts are "out there" in the
public sphere.)  Norm elections are not supported yet, not till the
beta release.

The point of my post is that we can actually do this today.  It opens
up an interesting question.  In your own words: Would the voters be
deciding on the 'who' and the 'what' in the form of candidates for the
ballot, and norms for action?  Or would they really (as McLuhan might
suggest) be deciding on the whole electoral system?

-- 
Michael Allan

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