[EM] proxy ideas: continual consideration, and proxy committees

[Michael Allan]

Hi Terry,

> ... a concern in larger organizations, especially those with power
> (let's say governmental use, rather than Free Association) that
> media-savvy demagogues (e.g. Glenn Beck) might not gain
> oligarchic-sized proxy holdings, and what effect that would have on
> deliberation? ...  Is there some notion of requiring personal
> contact with one's proxy, to prevent concentration on "stars."

Beck's TV viewers all vote for him directly?  (I guess many would.)
The result is then a massive star pattern (many voters, one candidate)
and the only communication is one-way, mass mediated, of the kind that
Beck and his viewers are used to anyway.  But this is probably an
unstable situation, as far as voting is concerned.  Two reasons:

(1) It works to the personal disadvantage of Beck-voters to vote
directly.  There are two aspects to this disadvantage:

  a) A direct Beck-voter has a rather limp and impotent vote.  The
     vote is received by Beck alone and it goes no further.  On the
     other hand, an indirect Beck-voter a vote with double potency (or
     more).  It is received first by the delegate, then by Beck.  At
     each receiving node it has full effect, and therefore the overall
     effect is multiplied.

  b) The direct Beck-voter cannot speak with the candidate, and get a
     reply.  Eventually, if he has anything at all to say, the voter
     will come to see that this is a personal disadvantage.  He will
     then shift his vote upstream to a delegate, and thereby gain some
     interlocuters (the delegate and co-voters).

(2) Votes are public.  Public exposure will tend to lift the direct
votes, and push/pull them away from the central, end-candidate:

  a) Peers (and betters) will question the rationale of direct
     Beck-voting, and challenge the voter ("Hey, don't you realize
     you're wasting your vote?") for reasons of (1).  So the direct
     votes will be pushed away.

  b) Beck delegates will go looking for voters.  The delegates will
     actively recruit among the throng of direct voters.  They'll have
     a great deal to offer them (all the reasons above) and will find
     them a receptive audience.  So the direct votes will be pulled
     away.

So I'm guessing it's unstable, mostly for social reasons.  As long
irrational voting isn't actually forced on people (an artifact of the
voting method) they'll solve the problem themselves.

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 647-436-4521
http://zelea.com/