[EM] Idea Proposal: Listening Democracy

[Raph Frank]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Duane Johnson <duane.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
> The voting process would go like this:
>   1. (By some process outside the scope of this proposal), it is determined
> that an issue needs to be voted on

This could be an issue, as controlling what people get to vote on
represents considerable power.

>   2. The issue is publicized and some citizens become aware of the issue
>   3. Of those who are aware, some citizens are concerned and want to vote on
> the issue.  Each engages in the following process:
>     a. The citizen registers as a voter and receives a voter ID
>     b. The voter approaches a potential endorser (e.g. friend or relative)
> and asks to hear their point of view for the vote
>     c. The endorser tells their point of view
>     d. The voter summarizes their point of view in writing
>     e. The endorser agrees that the summary is a correct representation,
> endorses the writ, and registers the endorsement
>     f. The voter repeats steps (b) through (e) for a SECOND endorser
>     g. The voter is now qualified to vote, and votes.

This seems pretty open to abuse.  You just need to get 2 people to
sign that you listened to them.

>   The Listening Democracy system emphasizes, formalizes, and rewards
> listening in the decision-making process.  The system is an improvement over
> direct voting because it ensures that each voter synthesizes information
> external to them.  It assumes that decisions reached through discourse are
> generally better than those reached by merely counting isolated opionions.

One of the reasons representative democracy is used is because people
don't have the time to consider the issue.

Well organised groups (often called "special interests") have a big
advantage over dispersed interests (the "general interest").  The
point of democracy is to give the general interest a voice.

Ofc, with current systems, special interests (as always) still have an
advantage.

However, with your proposal, these groups could enhance their voting
power further by ensuring that their members have a much higher
percentage registered to vote.

Also, if you make it harder to vote, less people will bother.

>  Crucially, however, it does not exclude people who do not reach that bar
> from significantly influencing the system.

Huh?  If they don't reach the bar, they don't get to vote.

I guess they could just refuse to endorse anyone who they disagree with.

>   An important element of a Listening Democracy is the ranked ballot (and
> subsequent pairwise tally, see Condorcet Method on Wikipedia).

The voting method used is separate from the voting rights component.

>   As mentioned earlier, the system is "viral" in the sense that it
> systematically involves more and more of the population.

Well, viral normally means choice.  It would be more accurately
described as excluding everyone from voting and then re-grant the
right back in a viral way.

Also, viral means starting small and getting bigger.  It is like how a
spark can create a fire.

>  By evenly (i.e. without discrimination) applying a restriction on the
> number of people who can vote, the value of a vote increases, just like
> currency.

Individual votes are effectively (almost) worthless now, but people
vote for social reasons.

> When endorsements are hard to find, more
> discussion will be required across tribe-like boundaries.

I think "tribes" would be well advised to conserve their endorsements.
 Each person outside the tribe who is endorsed is half an additional
vote for the tribe's enemies and half a vote lost for the tribe.

> What about vote buying or "endorsement buying"?
>   Vote buying would actually be much harder in a system of Listening
> Democracy.  Consider first of all that an unscrupulous citizen would have to
> buy out 3 people to get 1 vote: a voter and his or her two endorsers.  An
> unscrupulous citizen might try to buy the voter after he or she has achieved
> endorsement, but then a voter would feel doubly guilty for using or possibly
> even backstabbing close friends or relatives.  It seems that Listening
> Democracry would promote honesty in society better than any law could
> enforce it.

Vote buying is already illegal.

However, since the endorsement system is public, you do run the risk
of voter intimidation, so there is more risk of it.

If a "mob-boss" recommends that you endorse members of his party, then
it would be public if you did it.

The problem is that the people who are elected then are the ones who
enforce the law.  This was the purpose of the secret ballot.

Btw, you should look into the delegable proxy system.  This is also
designed to allow effective communication without overloading the
voters.