[EM] Idea Proposal: Listening Democracy

[Duane Johnson]

On Apr 20, 2010, at 6:55 AM, Raph Frank wrote:

> 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.

Indeed.  But thoughts evolve, and Listening Democracy is more the  
beginning of a thought than an end.  Thank you for participating in  
its growth :)

>
>>   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.

Since the objective is to improve communication in order to generate  
more informed decisions among people, the worst that can happen is  
people lie to each other and no listening occurs.  The voter is  
ultimately going to vote how they want (just like the present system),  
but the Listening Democracy system encourages them to listen to two  
other people's opinions first.

But you are right that it's easier to forge a signature than actually  
listen to someone.  My original thought was to include the summary of  
the endorser's opinion on the public record.  Then it could be cross- 
checked and challenged if it appears to be fraudulent.  But requiring  
opinions to be public has its own pros and cons.

>
>>   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.
>

Remember, however, that registering to vote does not guarantee that  
you can vote: if there is a scarcity of endorsers on your side of the  
issue divide, you will have to go to the other side, or, as you  
pointed out above, do something illegal.

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

Do we want the difficulty of voting to be evenly distributed?  I tend  
to think that if we want to optimize good decision making, we want to  
make it harder for people who are less informed to vote (i.e. not all  
information in a system is equal).  Requiring discussion as a baseline  
for qualifying to participate in the decision-making process seems  
like a fair requirement.

>>  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.
>
Correct.  And problems that people are facing will rise faster as  
information in the system, since voters have to be a little more  
informed than in the present system.

>>   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.

Was the viral nature of my proposal weakly conveyed?  Viruses are not  
normally chosen (I tend to think of "viral" things as choice-neutral),  
but I can see where you are coming from with regard to the connotation  
associated with "viral marketing".

The "starting small" that you mentioned would refer to the few people  
who are normally engaged in a social issue who, generally, are already  
"in the know".  Those who are in the know are few and those who are  
"unaware" are usually many.  I imagine the voting / discussion process  
to take place over the course of a few weeks or months, so that by the  
time it's done everyone has had a chance to become "virally" involved.

>
>>  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.
>

I am referring to perceived value here, just like currency is  
perceived value.  Musical Chairs is an active game because if there  
are 7 people and 6 chairs, everyone knows that they could be left  
without one unless they act.

>> 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.

I think you may be underestimating how much some people want to be  
heard.  Democracy, generally speaking, grants us each a voice, but  
does nothing to encourage us to listen.  People might even be willing  
to give an "enemy" half a vote in exchange for being understood.

>
>> 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.

This is a good point, one that I hadn't considered.

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

Thank you, yes, I was originally writing a Haskell program that  
implements the delegable proxy system when I started to consider the  
Listening Democracy idea.  The Haskell program is available at http://github.com/canadaduane/votelib

Regards,
Duane Johnson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20100421/3e40fa0a/attachment-0004.htm>