<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Apr 20, 2010, at 6:55 AM, Raph Frank wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Duane Johnson <<a href="mailto:duane.johnson@gmail.com">duane.johnson@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">The voting process would go like this:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> 1. (By some process outside the scope of this proposal), it is determined<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">that an issue needs to be voted on<br></blockquote><br>This could be an issue, as controlling what people get to vote on<br>represents considerable power.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Indeed. But thoughts evolve, and Listening Democracy is more the beginning of a thought than an end. Thank you for participating in its growth :)</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br><blockquote type="cite"> 2. The issue is publicized and some citizens become aware of the issue<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> 3. Of those who are aware, some citizens are concerned and want to vote on<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the issue. Each engages in the following process:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> a. The citizen registers as a voter and receives a voter ID<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> b. The voter approaches a potential endorser (e.g. friend or relative)<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">and asks to hear their point of view for the vote<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> c. The endorser tells their point of view<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> d. The voter summarizes their point of view in writing<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> e. The endorser agrees that the summary is a correct representation,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">endorses the writ, and registers the endorsement<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> f. The voter repeats steps (b) through (e) for a SECOND endorser<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> g. The voter is now qualified to vote, and votes.<br></blockquote><br>This seems pretty open to abuse. You just need to get 2 people to<br>sign that you listened to them.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Since the objective is to improve communication in order to generate more informed decisions among people, the worst that can happen is people lie to each other and no listening occurs. The voter is ultimately going to vote how they want (just like the present system), but the Listening Democracy system encourages them to listen to two other people's opinions first.</div><div><br></div><div>But you are right that it's easier to forge a signature than actually listen to someone. My original thought was to include the summary of the endorser's opinion on the public record. Then it could be cross-checked and challenged if it appears to be fraudulent. But requiring opinions to be public has its own pros and cons.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><br><blockquote type="cite"> The Listening Democracy system emphasizes, formalizes, and rewards<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">listening in the decision-making process. The system is an improvement over<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">direct voting because it ensures that each voter synthesizes information<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">external to them. It assumes that decisions reached through discourse are<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">generally better than those reached by merely counting isolated opionions.<br></blockquote><br>One of the reasons representative democracy is used is because people<br>don't have the time to consider the issue.<br><br>Well organised groups (often called "special interests") have a big<br>advantage over dispersed interests (the "general interest"). The<br>point of democracy is to give the general interest a voice.<br><br>Ofc, with current systems, special interests (as always) still have an<br>advantage.<br><br>However, with your proposal, these groups could enhance their voting<br>power further by ensuring that their members have a much higher<br>percentage registered to vote.<br><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Remember, however, that registering to vote does not guarantee that you can vote: if there is a scarcity of endorsers on your side of the issue divide, you will have to go to the other side, or, as you pointed out above, do something illegal.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>Also, if you make it harder to vote, less people will bother.<br><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Do we want the difficulty of voting to be evenly distributed? I tend to think that if we want to optimize good decision making, we want to make it harder for people who are less informed to vote (i.e. not all information in a system is equal). Requiring discussion as a baseline for qualifying to participate in the decision-making process seems like a fair requirement.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite"> Crucially, however, it does not exclude people who do not reach that bar<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">from significantly influencing the system.<br></blockquote><br>Huh? If they don't reach the bar, they don't get to vote.<br><br>I guess they could just refuse to endorse anyone who they disagree with.<br><br></div></blockquote><div>Correct. And problems that people are facing will rise faster as information in the system, since voters have to be a little more informed than in the present system.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite"> An important element of a Listening Democracy is the ranked ballot (and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">subsequent pairwise tally, see Condorcet Method on Wikipedia).<br></blockquote><br>The voting method used is separate from the voting rights component.<br><br><blockquote type="cite"> As mentioned earlier, the system is "viral" in the sense that it<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">systematically involves more and more of the population.<br></blockquote><br>Well, viral normally means choice. It would be more accurately<br>described as excluding everyone from voting and then re-grant the<br>right back in a viral way.<br><br>Also, viral means starting small and getting bigger. It is like how a<br>spark can create a fire.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Was the viral nature of my proposal weakly conveyed? Viruses are not normally chosen (I tend to think of "viral" things as choice-neutral), but I can see where you are coming from with regard to the connotation associated with "viral marketing". </div><div><br></div><div>The "starting small" that you mentioned would refer to the few people who are normally engaged in a social issue who, generally, are already "in the know". Those who are in the know are few and those who are "unaware" are usually many. I imagine the voting / discussion process to take place over the course of a few weeks or months, so that by the time it's done everyone has had a chance to become "virally" involved.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br><blockquote type="cite"> By evenly (i.e. without discrimination) applying a restriction on the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">number of people who can vote, the value of a vote increases, just like<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">currency.<br></blockquote><br>Individual votes are effectively (almost) worthless now, but people<br>vote for social reasons.<br><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I am referring to perceived value here, just like currency is perceived value. Musical Chairs is an active game because if there are 7 people and 6 chairs, everyone knows that they could be left without one unless they act.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite">When endorsements are hard to find, more<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">discussion will be required across tribe-like boundaries.<br></blockquote><br>I think "tribes" would be well advised to conserve their endorsements.<br> Each person outside the tribe who is endorsed is half an additional<br>vote for the tribe's enemies and half a vote lost for the tribe.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think you may be underestimating how much some people want to be heard. Democracy, generally speaking, grants us each a voice, but does nothing to encourage us to listen. People might even be willing to give an "enemy" half a vote in exchange for being understood.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br><blockquote type="cite">What about vote buying or "endorsement buying"?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Vote buying would actually be much harder in a system of Listening<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Democracy. Consider first of all that an unscrupulous citizen would have to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">buy out 3 people to get 1 vote: a voter and his or her two endorsers. An<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">unscrupulous citizen might try to buy the voter after he or she has achieved<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">endorsement, but then a voter would feel doubly guilty for using or possibly<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">even backstabbing close friends or relatives. It seems that Listening<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Democracry would promote honesty in society better than any law could<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">enforce it.<br></blockquote><br>Vote buying is already illegal.<br><br>However, since the endorsement system is public, you do run the risk<br>of voter intimidation, so there is more risk of it.<br><br>If a "mob-boss" recommends that you endorse members of his party, then<br>it would be public if you did it.<br><br>The problem is that the people who are elected then are the ones who<br>enforce the law. This was the purpose of the secret ballot.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is a good point, one that I hadn't considered.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>Btw, you should look into the delegable proxy system. This is also<br>designed to allow effective communication without overloading the<br>voters.<br></div></blockquote></div><br><div>Thank you, yes, I was originally writing a Haskell program that implements the delegable proxy system when I started to consider the Listening Democracy idea. The Haskell program is available at <a href="http://github.com/canadaduane/votelib">http://github.com/canadaduane/votelib</a></div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Duane Johnson</div></body></html>