[EM] direct / proxy voting paper, now online -- requesting comments

[Michael Allan]

Hi James,

> ... I've finished the first draft of my direct / proxy democracy
> paper, and posted it online at
> http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/vm/proxy2010.pdf
> ... At this point, I'm rather unsatisfied with the part of the lit
> review that talks about the proxy work that has been done outside
> the realm of academic journals... I think that I'm garbling the
> stuff about proxy software...

You're writing a forward-looking paper on the topic of proxy voting,
but you lack an understanding of the current impementations.  I've
already critiqued your ideas on that basis, but you haven't replied.
(See at bottom.)

> ... I'm not quite sure that I've got the Demoex stuff quite right,
> since that stuff is in Swedish...

I don't think the Demoex software (as a whole) is in use.  If I
recall, Giovani Spagnolo has worked with it in some capacity.  He can
be found in this list:
http://metagovernment.org/pipermail/start_metagovernment.org/

-- 
Michael Allan

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2010-March/025740.html

> 2A.  Basic system
> 
>        Let's say that I'm a voter arriving at my local polling station on
> the day that one or more issues are to be decided via direct vote.  I have
> the option of voting directly on each issue (or formally abstaining).  I
> also have the option of deferring my vote to a proxy of my choosing. 
> There is no minimum threshold of votes needed for anyone to serve as a
> proxy.

I think only online systems are practical.  They must interface
seamlessly with the public sphere (distributed everywhere, and running
24x7) else the results will be systematically distorted.  People
should not have to serve the nature/needs of the voting system, rather
it should serve their nature/needs.

Also crucial are the interfaces among voting, drafting and discussion
media (and probably others too), which cannot be implemented without
e-tools.

> 2B.  Provision for multiple options
> 
>        It is worth mentioning here that very few substantial social
> decisions can be reduced to a simple up or down vote.  Hence, in order to
> make this an effective social choice process, it's important to allow
> voters to express preferences between an appropriately wide range of
> options.  ...

This is where the interface with drafting media comes in.  If the
voter does not like any of the existing options, or wishes to make
changes to them, then she is free to draft her own (a kind of write-in
on the ballot).  But it then becomes an option for others to choose,
too (so it is a form of nomination, too).  This is feasible, and we
are implementing it already.

> 2C.  Frequency and bindingness
> 
>        The legal standing of the direct votes, and their frequency (the
> number of ballots per year and the number of issues per ballot), are
> simply matters of political choice.  For example, the system itself could
> be initially non-binding, but with most elected officials pledged to
> follow the results except in extraordinary circumstances.  Or, it could be
> legally binding, but subject to veto by the legislature, executive,
> judiciary, etc.  Direct votes could take place once per year, once per
> month, etc. 

I think it must never be binding (reasons above).

All direct votes must be continuous, 24x7 (above).

> 2D.  Logistics and privacy
> 
>        I primarily envision the voting taking place at officially
> designated polling stations (although internet voting might also be
> possible, if security and privacy can be assured, and if it can be done
> without disadvantaging those without internet service).  Prior to voting
> day, a computer file is compiled that lists all those who have volunteered
> to serve as proxies; when voters arrive at the polls, they can then choose
> the person whom they would like to represent them.  I would suggest that
> proxies' votes should be a matter of public record, unless bribery or
> political intimidation seems to be an especially serious problem.  The
> advantage of this is that voters will be able to directly verify that
> their proxy voted in a certain way, if necessary.  (A possible alternative
> would be to keep each proxy's voting record in a secure file, and allow
> them to distribute the password to the file at their own discretion.)

In theory, private voting will remove the necessary supports and
incentives for intercommunication among the voters.  This is
problematic.  If decision making is to be rational, then the decision
makers must be talking together - they must engage in person-to-person
dialogue on a very large scale.  Otherwise the results will be
determined not by the rational choices of ordinary people, but via
mass media, by money and power.

On the practical side too, I doubt that private voting (online) can be
verified in a manner that would secure public trust.  If people cannot
see the votes, and count them themselves, they are unlikely to confer
legitimacy on the results.

> 2E.  Issue generation ...
> 2F.  Option generation ...

We currently allow anyone to raise an issue, and others to immediately
start voting on it.  Options for the issue are also ad hoc, and no
restrictions on either of these.  (Most online systems are like this,
more or less.)

> 2H.  Model voting
> 
>        Under current election systems, when voters do not have a great
> deal of information about the candidates or issues that they're voting on,
> they often choose based on endorsements, i.e.  recommendations from people
> and organizations whose opinions they value...

In theory, the public sphere has no trouble with information.  The
challenge is to design a practical system of voting that can penetrate
the public sphere without systematically distorting it.  Then voter
mis-information and ignorance (weaknesses of our current voting
systems) are no longer a problem.
 
> 3.  Representation by proxy
> 
>        In this section, I discuss how a proxy system can be used as a
> basis for political representation, i.e.  as a method to determine the
> composition of the legislature and the relative voting power of its
> members.  What I propose is as follows ...

Your proposal would entail constitutional changes.  But I gather that
you only wish to encourage the elected members to pay attention to the
results of the public voting (despite decoupling, non-binding, etc).

A simpler solution would be to let the public vote 24x7 on the
re-election prospects of the sitting members.  So people aren't voting
exclusively on normative issues (laws, plans, policies), but also on
electoral issues.  The voting on each particular seat would function
as a kind of primary election (albeit a continuous one).  As such it
would dovetail with the existing electoral process (no constitutional
change needed).

> 4.  Continual recalculation of majority positions...

(This seems to be an earlier version of your idea of "continual
 consideration", above.)

> ...  When I indicate a proxy, the system gives my voting power to my
> proxy on all of the issues that I haven't voted on...

We forsee "autocasters" as the means for this kind of thing (Friedrich
Lindenberg and Thomas von der Elbe have initiated thought on this).
An autocaster is personal tool that stands in for the voter and casts
votes, as it is "programmed" to do.  By distributing the system out in
this fashion (literally putting it in the hands of the voters) we hope
to avoid the systematic biases that would be introduced by a more
centralized scheme.