[EM] language/framing quibble, and killer apps

[Michael Allan]

Raph Frank wrote:
> 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.

True.  I like how Max Weber qualifies it:

  Not ideas, but material and ideal interests directly govern men's
  conduct.  Yet very frequently the "world images" created by "ideas"
  have, like switchmen, determined the tracks along which action has
  been pushed by the dynamic of interest.

> ...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).
> ...
> 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.

Call this the "formal defense" of the modern state.  It claims that
the constitutional structures are not at fault.  The faults or
failings in democracy are located outside of state institutions.  But
whether we argue that government isn't broken and needn't be fixed, or
that it's impervious to change anyhow, the issue is the same.  The
crucial thing is location.  The fixes and changes are needed
elsewhere.

> >  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.

Nevertheless we have telephones.  Even without the equivalent of
Bell's money and social connections (he married well), we have other
networks that grew from small beginnings, pretty much on their own
(file sharing for instance).

Much depends on the design.  I believe my own design is immune to the
network effect.  If it works as I hope, it will have almost the
opposite tendency - a viral effect - a strong tendency to scale up.
(More below.)

> 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'.

If they get what democracy promises, and modern democracy denies -
participation and freedom of choice - that would be enough for a
killer app.

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

Yes.  (I'm about to start my usability trials.)

> 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.

I just voted for you.  (I used a real email address, else you'd be
unable to login.  You can blank out the registration later, or I'll
blank it out for you.)

  http://t.zelea.com:8080/v/w/RoleV/?v=mike%40zelea.com&s=ward-20-councillor

You are currently the only candidate.  Here are the results:

  http://t.zelea.com:8080/v/w/Count/?s=ward-20-councillor

As a delegate, you now have the equivalent of 2 votes (mine + yours).
You can give them to anyone, without restriction.  As a voter, I am
curious to see who you vote for.  I am expecting you to reveal
information to me, just as Abd says.

Do you see how this might be viral?  There are real freedoms and
opportunities for participation.  I'm especially interested in the
effect it will have on people when they learn that others have voted
for them.  I think that's the key.

> 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.

So you distribute storage of the votes.  Interesting.  I distribute
the legislative drafts (each drafter responsible for her own), but I
store the votes centrally.

> 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.

Your idea is naturally a pull architecture, vs. push.  The talliers
harvest the votes from the periphery of the network by polling it.
Polling will lead to problems (traffic overhead and timing issues)
especially for continuous elections.  The solutions will complicate
the system, so it's probably not a good way to start.  But it's an
interesting idea, maybe for later...

Central storage of votes is simpler.  I do distribute the storage
sites (electoral servers) one per city or region.  Otherwise it would
be hard to scale, and offensive to local sensibilities.

> 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.

I don't quite understand proxy lists.  There are no PR elections in my
area.  Maybe you are suggesting that, with different strategies for
tallying results (different voting mechanisms and eligibility
criteria), it would be informative to compare the results
side-by-side.  Yes, so ideally the system is open enough so people can
define their own strategies and "roll" their own counts - all from the
same raw electoral data.

For sock puppets, I have a trust network to authenticate the voter
lists.  It effectively ties online identity to physical street
addresses.  Any vote you cast in Toronto's elections won't count once
the trust network kicks in.  (Meantime I've housed you in the
University library.)
 
> There is also the linking of your online ID between various sites.
> People may not want that though :).

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.  They included everyone.  Nobody complained,
except maybe if they were excluded.  I'm hoping that people haven't
fundamentally changed.

-- 
Michael Allan

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