[EM] language/framing quibble

[Raph Frank]

On 9/9/08, Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com> wrote:
> I cannot take any of you seriously.  Are you all suspending disbelief
>  for the sake of the argument?  I agree with your ideals, but there's
>  an element of unreality in proposing to restructure a legislature by
>  design.  Like in Brian's suggestion that "once we've figured out what
>
> the best possible election method is, we'll be ready to switch into
>
> advocacy mode".

Surely, 'advocacy mode' means taking steps to make the change come about.

It doesn't necesarily mean lobbying politicians.  It could be setting
up a new party, or your proposal.

>  Design ideas have no power to transform institutions
>  of state.  On the rare occaisions when an institution is amenable to
>  change, the only "advocacy mode" that matters is power, and the only
>  criterion for selecting the "best" design is the degree to which it
>  serves the interests of that power.

Right.  The thing is that the people in a democracy have alot of
actual power.  However, they tend not to bother to use it (or be
organised).

The US (and many other countries') founders had to base their new
structure on something.  Ideas are not as irrelevant as you seem to
make out.

PR-STV wouldn't have been implemented if nobody bothered to suggest it.

>  It follows from historical
>  changes like the creation of a middle class, and the availability of
>  books, newspapers and other media.  There is no reason to suppose that
>  the situation today is any different.  Any restructuring of state
>  institutions is going to follow from a restructuring of other spheres.
>  You need to shift your design sights from the former to the latter,
>  otherwise you are thinking in a box.

Well, changes to the voting methods have been achieved.  The US
constitution can be changed.  It is just a matter of getting people to
push hard enough.

>  Why not design the new legislature as an institution of the public
>  sphere, rather than of government?  (Then it will at least be
>  feasible.)  Why not actually build it?  (Then you can prove the
>  design.)

I think the problem with the proxy idea is one of critical mass.  It
is a network and the 'network effect' applies.  The value of each
individual phone increases as the number of people with phones
increase.

A telephone is worthless unless others have telephones.

Adb has said that even if you just have 1 proxy who has accepted you
as a client, you are better off as they find info for you.  This may
be true, but it doesn't look like it is enough to trigger mass use.

What does a specific user get from joining the system?  You need a 'killer app'.

You also need a zero effort way of joining the system.

My thoughts are that one way might be to create a standard format for
the proxy tables.

For example, to assign a proxy, you might create a webpage with your
proxy/client list.  Your username might just be an email address like
field

So, my username might be

raphfrk at mywebsite.com

http://mywebsite.com/raphfrk/proxylist.html

would then contain a list of proxy assignments.

A client list and other lists are also optional.

For example, it could contain a list of web forums that I have
registered on and also my username on each.  This in effect links my
ID between forums.  Someone who registers using my username somewhere
else won't be added to my list, so people won't think it is me.

So, maybe XML

<proxylist>
proxy at theirwebsite.com
proxy2 at website2.com
</proxylist>

<clientlist>
name1 at website.com
name2 at website.com
</clientlist>

<vbulletin>
<url="forum1.com" username="Raphfrk">
<url="forum2.com" username="othername">
</vbulletin>

Once that is in place, the proxy lists are fully public and not
subject to central control.  Anyone can create a new username at any
time manually.

Software could be designed (by different people/groups) that creates
those files with a better UI.  It's not like email users actually know
the POP3 format for example.

People can then create websites that can parse these files.  Some
might accept all lists as authentic.  However, any polls that they
publish would be worthless as they would just be lots of sock puppets.

Other sites might implement basic checking.  For example, a user would
be verified by ringing up a number for the website to confirm.  That
user is then allowed to confirm say 20 others.

This could then get progressively strict.

Accepting someone as a client would be asserting that they are a RL person.

If you vote, then anyone can check the various files to tally the
result.  The forum that is handling the discussion would list who has
voted for and against so far, but wouldn't control the proxy tables
themselves.  It would also display its tally.  However, in principle,
each person could see their own result based on who they feel is valid
and who isn't.

It means that the group can switch forum easily.  If the forum owner
also has the proxy lists, then this is harder.  Having said that,
creating an add on for a well used piece of forum software might be a
way to create the initial proxy lists that act as seed.

Anyway, way to much text.  Also, it still isn't a killer app.

I do like the idea of forum polls where there is multiple results.
Each result is based on the trust links due to a few proxies.

Forum: Yes 51%, No 49%

Proxy1: Yes 62% No 38%
Proxy2: Yes 56% No 44%
Average: Yes: 59% No 39%

It incorporates the knowledge from your proxies into your browsing
experience.  In the above example, they are saying that the No side is
stuffing the ballot with sockpuppets .. or at least the No voters
matter less for some reason.  Perhaps, the No voters live far away and
this is a city specific decision.

There is also the linking of your online ID between various sites.
People may not want that though :).