[EM] I should have listed SODA. The conditional methods win, _among the ballots-only methods_.
km_elmet at lavabit.com
Sun Jan 29 06:41:25 PST 2012
On 01/11/2012 08:34 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
> Yes, sorry to have again missed SODA in my list of FBC/AOC methods.
> Methods involving delegation or proxy can do a good job of avoiding
> strategy problems.
> I suggest that Proxy Direct Democracy, as I've described it during
> the last few months on EM, is the obvious best form of government.
> (if count-validity can be assured) ...Let's let government catch up
> with technology.
> Of course in Proxy DD, there'd still be single-winner choices among
> alternatives (but not candidates). SODA, therefore, wouldn't be
> applicable in Proxy DD.
> Under the present system of single-winner-elected representation, I
> include SODA among the good FBC/ABE methods, even though I neglected
> to list it in my previous posting.
If proxy methods (particularly negotiation methods that end once the
election is over) are better than ordinary election methods, does that
strengthen parliamentarism over presidentialism?
In the legislative area, both parliamentarism and presidentialism
involves a form of proxy system, though one with very weak feedback. You
vote for representative/s, and then they are supposed to represent you
when voting for bills and so on. But in parliamentary systems, the
representatives also decide the composition of the executive. The voters
don't - instead, the representatives negotiate among themselves on what
the executive should be like. That sounds a lot like proxying.
It's not as fluid as true proxy systems since you can't alter your vote
after the election. If the representatives don't represent you, you
can't just shift your votes elsewhere. However, it seems to have a
similar pattern: a large group (composed of the voters) that doesn't
have the time to continuously monitor the situation picks a group to do
so, and then (less frequently) monitors that group.
More information about the Election-Methods