<HTML><BODY>
<div>Was auto-unsubscribed for some reason, so this is a resend.<br>
<br>
From: raphfrk@netscape.net<br>
<br>
<div>> On 4/2/07, Howard Swerdfeger <electorama.com at howard.swerdfeger.com> wrote:<br>
> > 1.)<br>
> > I became aware of proxy democracy over a year ago. I find it interesting<br>
> > from a intellectual standpoint. I think it could make a fine democratic<br>
> > system. However, I do not believe the the people of the world are<br>
> > anywhere near ready to implement/accept such a system. I think it would<br>
> > be most useful to medium to large size groups or organizations for now.<br>
> > In the mean time I feel no obligation to promote "proxy democracy" as I<br>
> > am most interested in democratic reform at the provincial/Country level,<br>
> > and I feel "proxy democracy" will not achievable or acceptable to the<br>
> > people for many many years, with many changes to our democracy between<br>
> > now and then. I prefer to focus on the next evolutionary step.<br>
><br>
> Do you agree that some good might come if people on different sides of<br>
> an issue would talk to each other?<br>
><br>
> If so, consider creating a River Province Open Forum, which would be<br>
> an FA/DP. To the people of your province, it might seem like just<br>
> another discussion group. What would be possibly unique about it are<br>
> that it would be neutral on all issues, and welcome participants from<br>
> all sides of an issue, and it would also be very general in scope,<br>
> i.e. any issue that might be related to what the provincial government<br>
> does or how the government is structured would be on-topic for the<br>
> forum. Also, there would be a proxy list. </div>
<div><recommendation to setup a neutral forum></div>
<div>> (Perhaps newcomers should be<br>
> encouraged to choose a proxy about a week after they join, so they can<br>
> continue to be represented even if they go inactive. It's typical that<br>
> only about 10% of newsgroup members are "active" in any sense.) And<br>
> there should be some mechanism for conducting polls.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>I think it would be hard for newcommers to select a proxy. Also, they<br>
likely would consider it providing them no benefit. After 1 week, would<br>
they really know enough about the other members to pick a proxy? On the<br>
other hand, if the forum was specifically setup with that in mind so <br>
people knew it would be required, then there would likely be less<br>
resistance.</div>
<div>I wonder if a possible solution would be to automatically assign proxy<br>
and then allow the user to opt out. For example, there could be a system<br>
where users can rate posts in the forum. For example, "strongly agree, <br>
agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree". If the new user marks<br>
say 5 of a single poster's posts as agree or strongly agree, then the<br>
system would recommend that the user selects that poster as his proxy.</div>
<div>The user would obviously have the ability to completely override the<br>
system if that is what he wished. However, the idea would be to make<br>
it so that the user wouldn't want to as they system tends to give <br>
effective proxy links.</div>
<div>Also, the system could give an estimate on what the user would think<br>
of a specific post. The user could then make adjustments as needed.<br>
As time passes the system should be trained better.</div>
<div>This could even be recursive. If you rate lots of posts as "agree"<br>
then the system could probably figure out what other posters you <br>
would agree with based on how other people rated the posts.</div>
<div>This would lead to fractional proxies. Each user would in effect give <br>
other users proxy scores from say, 0 to 10. The user's vote would then <br>
be split in proportion to the score they give to any proxies with the <br>
max vote being limited by the score granted.</div>
<div>For example, if I rate proxies as</div>
<div>A: 7<br>
B: 10<br>
C: 1<br>
D: 2</div>
<div>and A, C and D vote, then my vote is split <br>
A: 0.7<br>
C: 0.1<br>
D: 0.2</div>
<div>If they all vote, it would be<br>
A: 0.35<br>
B: 0.5<br>
C: 0.05<br>
D: 0.1</div>
<div>However, if only D votes it would be<br>
D: 0.2 ( as D only obtained 2 points, so is capped at 0.2)</div>
<div>This allows a user to set lots of proxies at say 1 and 2 and thus not<br>
giving all of the vote to any 1 user.</div>
<div>Another aspect of the proxy system is the feedback. This could be <br>
implmenented by allowing users to flag a thread as important. If one <br>
of your proxies (or at least someone you have rated highly) does that <br>
then, maybe you would get an email. Each user could set their own<br>
threshold for being emailed if a fractional proxy system is used.</div>
<div>Also, there is the issue of sock puppets. They can be (possibly/partially)<br>
solved by having some kind of reputation system. If a 'username' is <br>
consistantly able to effect real world effects (like getting say 20-30<br>
people to attend some function), then they gain some additional power <br>
relative to a newbie user.</div>
<div>Actually, this problem is more generally that each username does not<br>
represent the same level of commitment. If the point of the FA is to <br>
coordinate real life actions, then a person's vote should be related to<br>
how much real life effect they will have. </div>
<div>If the point of the system is to negotiate compromises, then the default<br>
situation needs to be known. If you have 1000 users but only 10 of them<br>
are likely to take part in any protests/counter protests/actions, then<br>
only those 10 really matter. </div>
<div>Ofc, if the point of the organisation is to coordinate voting in <br>
the actual election, then everyone matters equally. You get just <br>
as much effect on the election by convincing 100 people that your<br>
candidate is a good one as you do by convincing 100 people that <br>
your candidate is worth dying for.</div>
<div>> If the forum attracts many members and is representative in political<br>
> makeup of the province, _and_ if the polls are honest, then the forum<br>
> could become quite influential, because it would be a strong statement<br>
> of the will of the people if a poll resulted in 90% of the members<br>
> being for some particular position or solution.</div>
<div>There are alot of ifs there. It is a basic bootstrap problem and if<br>
it actually does start to become influential (so it is worth corrupting),<br>
then sockpuppet prevention becomes more important and difficult.</div>
<div>One option would be to link every user to a RL registered voter. Users<br>
in the forum could be general users and confirmed voters. All polls<br>
could report both results.</div>
<div>> If the forum does become influential, then there is some incentive for<br>
> people to corrupt the polls to their advantage. How to avoid that?<br>
> - Make it part of the culture of the forum that proxies are<br>
> responsible for verifying that any clients they accept are who they<br>
> say they are. In order to avoid one person masquerading as several, it<br>
> would probably be necessary for the proxy list to use people's real<br>
> names. </div>
<div>I know I suggest it too, but this could be a biggie. One of the <br>
'benefits' of the internet is that people can be anonymous.</div>
<div>> For a bit of additional security, add the person's street<br>
> number or the last three digits of their phone number, etc. If a proxy<br>
> is found to have accepted a fake or duplicate person, just post a note<br>
> to the forum reporting the evidence. </div>
<div>What evidence ? Also, posting user's addresses isn't going to go down<br>
very well.</div>
<div>What is needed is some way to prove that a user is a RL person without<br>
giving away to much identifyable infomation.</div>
<div>> The credibility of that proxy<br>
> would go down if it happened more than once, and people would start to<br>
> discount votes associated with the proxy's supposed constituency.<br>
> - Make the polls open (no secret ballots). Then anyone can interpret<br>
> the ballots however they like.</div>
<div>This is a good thing. However, I am not so sure how practical. There <br>
would need to be a way to automate it. Few people will read the entire<br>
vote and re-weight all the votes.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Raphfrk</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div style="clear: both;">Raphfrk<br>
--------------------<br>
Interesting site<br>
"what if anyone could modify the laws"<br>
<br>
www.wikocracy.com</div>
<!-- end of AOLMsgPart_2_bb7f5438-56ab-43b3-8bcc-ba33a4b05c98 -->
<div class="AOLPromoFooter">
<hr style="margin-top:10px;" />
<a href="http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1081283466x1074645346/aol?redir=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaim%2Ecom%2Ffun%2Fmail%2F" target="_blank"><b>Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail</b></a> -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.<br />
</div>
</BODY></HTML>