[EM] I should have listed SODA. The conditional methods win, _among the ballots-only methods_.

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

On 01/11/2012 08:34 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
> Jameson--
>
> 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.