[EM] New Critrerion: The Co-operation/Defection Criterion

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Jameson--
 
I'd said:
 
 
??? The situation you describe doesn't satisfy CD's premise stipulations.

[endquote]
 
You wrote:
 
Yes it does. 
 
[endquote]
 
Read CD's premise.
 
 
You continued:
 
The voted ballots could come from a CD scenario, and a system
has no way to distinguish if they don't.
 
[endquote]
 
No doubt any set of voted ballots could come from nearly any conceivable
sincere-preferences scenario. CD applies to situations that satisfy its
premise stipulations. For instance, CD is only about situations in which
a majority prefer A and B to all the other candidates.
 
 

> Delegation proposals like SODA have been around for a very long time.
> They've
> been independently re-invented many times.
>
 
You wrote:
 
SODA also has a delegation order which helps resolve this
situation; this is a feature which I have not seen elsewhere.
 
[endquote]
 
I proposed one such on EM.
 
I'm sure that delegation would be great. It's part of my direct democracy proposal
that I posted here. Ballots could be identified by an anonymous voter ID number. A voter
could indicate that, on any issue or election on which s/he doesn't vote, hir voting power
would go to a delegate priorly designated by hir. S/he, in fact, could designate a ranking of delegates,
so that, for instance, if hir 1st delegate doens't vote on a question, hir voting power would go to hir
next-ranked delegate. Or, alternatively, if s/he chooses, s/he could indicate that s/he wants her
voting power, in such instance, to follow the delegation ranking designated by that delegate of hirs.
 
I posted that proposal some years ago. Look for it by searching for "Direct Democracy, Ossipoff"
 
or "Proxy Direct Democracy", or "Proxy Direct Democracy, Ossipoff".
 
But you're talking about delegates who would re-vote for you after the election results are in. That wasn't
in my proposal, which was about system, rather than method. But yes, as a method proposal, having a few optionally-
designated delegates to re-vote for people, after the first elecition results are in, would be fine. Of course one
would have to choose among just a few delegates, so that the voting among those dozen or so delegates would be quick, '
easy and inexpensive. That could be used with any voting system. It would be good with wv, MMPO, MDDA or MAMPO. It would
ensure that no one would try offensive strategy, and, thereby, it would make those methods entirely strategy-free.
 

> It would be one way of getting rid of defensive strategy problems, as well
> as a 2nd
> election, but cheaper. But maybe illegal,

You wrote:
 
On what basis? 
 
[endquote]
 
I'm not an attorney. But it might be that each person is required to cast hir own ballot.
 
You wrote:
 
Sounds like FUD.
 
[endquote]
 
What is FUD?
 
 
maybe unconstitutional,

You replied:
 
????!!!! You're talking about the US constitution? The one that allowed
appointed senators (until the 17th amendment) and still would allow at-large
representatives or representatives from unequal-sized districts? Exactly
where in "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and
Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature
thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such
Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators" (or even "The
United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form
of Government") is the nature of a vote defined? Sorry, no way.
 
The Constituion can, of course, be interpreted as desired.
 
You wrote:
 
and most likely
> would sound undemocratic to people

SODA delegation is 100% optional. If you don't like the pre-announced
preference order, don't delegate. Very simple. If there's anything
undemocratic here, it's you telling me that I can't delegate even if I want
to, not me telling you that you can if you want to.
and would be rejected by the public.
>
Could be. I think not.
[end quote]
 
Good. Then let's get it enacted. Only time will tell. When proposing it, I've gotten
opposition from people who felt that each person must cast their own vote.