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

[James Green-Armytage]

Hi Terry,

I'm responding to your 4/10 post, which is quoted at the bottom of this
message. In brief, you expressed a concern that proxy systems would
empower Glen Beck style ideologue media ideologues. 

I think that this is a key point, well worth discussing. I had your post
in mind (along with a conversation I had years ago with a friend who
raised a similar concern, probably with Rush Limbaugh's name instead of
Glen Beck's) when I wrote subsection 5.7 of my paper, which is copied
below. A draft of the paper itself is available at
http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/vm/proxy2010.pdf

my best,
James

=====

5.7. Demagogues and debates
	One of the more plausible criticisms of proxy systems is that they may
allow irresponsible demagogues, such as ideologue media personalities, to
gain more official power than they would otherwise enjoy. For one thing,
whereas plurality makes it difficult to win an election when you are very
far from the ideological center of your constituents, proportional
representation systems do not share this constraint. To the extent that
proxy systems offer more diversity and more exact proportionality than
most other PR systems, we may expect to see more ‘fringe elements' serving
as representatives. Since there are few barriers to entry associated with
becoming a candidate, some people who are already famous might be able to
translate that fame into voting power, without the need to form a
political party or spend further resources on a campaign. Thus,
celebrities, extremists, and even ‘celebrity extremists' could potentially
become representatives.
	This criticism can't be completely dismissed, but it can be addressed.
First, the primary goal of this system is to be as democratic as possible.
Because people are fallible, the rule of the people can at times lead to
unfortunate results, a fact which no political system can promise to cure.
Second, although political extremists may have voting power, they will not
be able to pass politically extreme legislation, since bills need a
majority to pass. Thus, if people feel more satisfied, and more like their
views are being heard, when they are represented by someone whom most
people consider ‘outside of the mainstream', then it is difficult to
assume that this is a bad thing. The very things that make this possible,
i.e. low barriers to participation and diversity of representation, can
also be seen as extremely positive. In many cases, this diversity should
lead to a public dialogue that is more robust and freewheeling than what
is currently the norm, which could be extremely refreshing, and cause a
great many more people to find the process engaging and interesting rather
than stuffy and cynical. 
	Of course, the quality of discourse, and of democracy itself, depends not
only on the system of formal political power, but also on the quality of
the media, the education system, etc. If the media excessively empowers
celebrities at the expense of ordinary citizens, then this fact will be
reflected in the political system, to its detriment. If politically
extreme groups merely preach to their own converted, then we'll miss out
on many of the benefits of diverse public dialogue.
	Describing an ideal political media structure is beyond the scope of this
paper, but clearly one of the key elements is that representatives of
different political groups should have both an opportunity and an
incentive to engage in substantive discussions with each other –
discussions that go beyond grandstanding and towards finding compromise
and common ground, and in the case of disagreement, identifying and in
some cases challenging the fundamental basis of that disagreement. 
	To help this along, it might avail us to have a system where every seated
legislator (and perhaps even some large proxy holders who don't have
seats) is required or at least strongly encouraged to participate in a
series of one-on-one debates or discussions. For example, suppose that
each legislator was asked to participate in five debates per year, with
each debate lasting about two hours. For any given legislator, so long as
more than five people wished to challenge them to debate (these people
could be other legislators, or just regular citizens), these debate slots
would be scarce, and thus once again it would make sense to use a
proportional representation method such as STV to allocate them. (The use
of PR rather than a majoritarian voting system would guarantee that, even
if legislators were members of some kind of majority coalition, they still
wouldn't be able to stack their debate schedule with comrades and thus
avoid any real challenges to their views.) There would be no limit to the
number of debates in which one person could serve as the challenger; thus,
for example, in addition to the five debates in which they were themselves
challenged, a single legislator might serve as the challenger in dozens of
other debates. 
	As for the formats of the debates themselves, they should be organized by
a politically neutral authority, and they should be performed with
fact-checkers on site to keep the discussion firmly grounded in reality.
Topics would be initiated not by moderators but by participants; for
example, each might have the opportunity to ask four questions of the
other, and the discussion from each question would be given a period of
fifteen minutes or so. Rather than having a limited time per response,
candidates should have a limited time per discussion period. This way, the
participants can have something approaching a normal conversation, asking
and answering questions, making short statements of just a sentence or
two, and following specific trains of thought to the end, rather than
giving lengthy speeches that only partially respond to each other, and
leave most issues unresolved in the end. Participants may pause their
clock – and the video coverage – to consider their replies and to ask
questions of the fact checkers, but of course they shouldn't be allowed to
have aides feeding them responses during these times. The videos of these
debates, when completed, should be made available online. Compared to
current presidential debates, which tend to be rather frustrating to
watch, and which only vaguely approximate what one might call a
substantive discussion, these debates should be quite engaging, and thus
hopefully fairly popular with viewers. 

=====

Terry Bouricius wrote:

>Abd and Michael Allan,
>
>I have been intrigued by Delegable Proxy, or Delegate Cascade (not clear 
>if there is a difference) for some time. I can really see how it might 
>work well in small free associations (where members are free to join or 
>quit).
>
>I am curious if either of you have a response to 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."
>
>Terry Bouricius
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20100512/fd124160/attachment-0003.htm>