[EM] The structuring of power and the composition of norms by communicative assent

[Dave Ketchum]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:30:41 -0500 Michael Allan wrote:
> Dave Ketchum wrote:
> 
> 
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sphere
>>
>>Thanks for this.  I did a search on "vot" and am convinced voting is
>>not one of their topics - and suspect you stretched to tie it in.
> 
> 
> I had to learn new things, and got stretched that way.  I learned
> about this concept of the public sphere, which is part of theoretical
> social science.  I'm not an expert on it, but I think it fits with the
> voting mechanism.  I describe the fit in the original post.  Is
> anything stretched?
> 
> 
>>I see now you're not offering secrecy.  Seems to me it should not be 
>>offered unless whoever is offering is attempting to actually deliver. Thus, 
>>while a voter might assert to having voted as stated, secrecy would forbid 
>>proving this.
> 
> 
> True, I don't offer secrecy, at present - votes are forced to be
> openly disclosed.  But, as I concede to Juho, we must eventually add
> an option for a secret ballot, so giving the voter a choice of
> disclosure type (mixed type 2).
> 
> If I understand, you are saying Juho's type 2 is no good?  So, if a
> secret ballot is made available to some voters (who demand it), then
> it must be forced on all other voters too?  Even on those who demand
> open voting?
> 
I think the word "secret" should not be used unless secrecy is actually 
promised and attempted.

I see little value in what you call open voting, but could understand that 
being offered in other elections.
> 
>>Again, the voter does not control secrecy.  Whoever is controlling the 
>>method of voting should not claim secrecy unless doing their best to 
>>provide as claimed.
> 
> 
> Else the voter could be coerced (social pressure) into voting openly,
> when she'd rather vote secretly?  (This came up earlier, near top of
> thread.)
> 
Real topic here is whether you MEAN secret when you use the word.  And, 
yes, a voter could fear open voting so properly needs to know whether 
secrecy protection is offered.

Note that, in extremes, knowing some votes can be useful in determining 
other votes.
> 
>>>... The verification process rests on proving the individual votes
>>>of each voter...
>>
> 
>>The proxy claims, and needs to be able to prove, authority to vote
>>as if 14 voters.
> 
 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proxy voting and delegated voting are procedures for the delegation to 
another member of a voting body of that member's power to vote in his 
absence. Proxy appointments can be used to form a voting bloc that can 
exercise greater influence in deliberations or negotiations. A person so 
designated is called a "proxy" and the person designating him is called a 
"principal."

You seem to be thinking of something else.
> 
> No such claim.  No need for proxy (P) even to be aware she is a proxy.
> For example:
> 
...
> 
>>Could be the authority includes some direction as to how to vote - my point 
>>is that the proxy could simply be trusted to vote in the permission giver's 
>>interest.
> 
...
-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.