<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
On 7/20/2018 8:18 PM, Andy Jennings wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+Df2txozkEQ+r_cBjpc8+=KR9ZNwvAkLCH3Ee7_PZf++aMLSw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 12:35 PM,
steve bosworth <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:stevebosworth@hotmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">stevebosworth@hotmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div id="m_-2979412911552235613divtagdefaultwrapper"
style="font-size:14pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif"
dir="ltr">
<p style="background:rgb(244,244,244);margin:0in 0in
0pt;line-height:22.5pt;vertical-align:middle">
<b><span style="color:black"><font face="Calibri">From:</font></span></b><font
face="Calibri"><span style="color:black"> <a
href="mailto:abjennings@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">abjennings@gmail.com</a>
<<a href="mailto:abjennings@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">abjennings@gmail.com</a>>
on behalf of Andy Jennings <<a
href="mailto:elections@jenningsstory.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">elections@jenningsstory.com</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 16, 2018 5:26 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> steve bosworth<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
href="mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">election-methods@lists.<wbr>electorama.com</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [EM] IRV et al v. EPR</span><span
style="color:black;font-size:14pt">
</span></font></p>
<p style="background:rgb(244,244,244);margin:0in 0in
0pt;line-height:22.5pt;vertical-align:middle">
<span style="color:black;font-size:14pt"><font
face="Calibri"> </font></span></p>
<p style="background:rgb(244,244,244);margin:0in 0in
0pt;line-height:22.5pt;vertical-align:middle">
<span style="color:black;font-size:14pt"><font
face="Calibri">Steve,</font></span></p>
<p style="background:rgb(244,244,244);margin:0in 0in
0pt;line-height:22.5pt;vertical-align:middle">
<span style="color:black;font-size:14pt"><font
face="Calibri">Andy,</font></span></p>
<p style="background:rgb(244,244,244);margin:0in 0in
0pt;line-height:22.5pt;vertical-align:middle">
<span style="color:black;font-size:14pt"><font
face="Calibri">Thank you for responding so
quickly.<span>
</span>I will respond immediately in line after
each of your questions and points.</font></span></p>
<p style="background:rgb(244,244,244);margin:0in 0in
0pt;line-height:22.5pt;vertical-align:middle">
<span style="color:black;font-size:14pt"><font
face="Calibri">A:<span>
</span>I like the idea of a PR system based on
majority judgment, but have some concerns with
this method. Are you proposing that the
different elected legislators have different
voting weights in the legislature? </font></span></p>
<p style="background:rgb(244,244,244);margin:0in 0in
0pt;line-height:22.5pt;vertical-align:middle">
<span style="color:black;font-size:14pt"><font
face="Calibri"> </font></span></p>
<p style="background:rgb(244,244,244);margin:0in 0in
0pt;line-height:22.5pt;vertical-align:middle">
<span style="color:black;font-size:14pt"><font
face="Calibri">S:<span>
</span>Yes.</font></span></p>
<p style="background:rgb(244,244,244);margin:0in 0in
0pt;line-height:22.5pt;vertical-align:middle">
<span style="color:black;font-size:14pt"><font
face="Calibri"> </font></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>I looked at the article again and I do see it
mentioned that the members will have votes of different
weights on the council. I'm not sure how I missed it
the first time. You may want to consider re-emphasizing
it at the end</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
If taken simply and literally, it's a Really Bad Idea. The concept
of a peer assembly, where all members are equal in voting power and
other rights (such as the right to enter motions, object, etc.) is
fundamental, except in narrow situations. For example, in share
corporations, all shares have equal voting rights, except as
otherwise specified, i.e., some kinds of shares may not have voting
rights. ("Preferred shares" may not, oddly enough, but those shares
enjoy the right of preferential distribution on dissolution. The
controlling shares lose in a bankruptcy, less so the preferred
shares. It's fair.)<br>
<br>
It's basically unnecessary, there is a better way to equalize
primary election votes and decision-making voting power. However, as
I have mentioned, an Assembly has the right to make its own rules
and may create rules allowing, say, tie-breaking votes, or other
conditions where what I've called the"dregs," unassigned votes, may
be exercised by electors or someone chosen by them. "Observer
electgors" may be allowed, and in an enumerated vote, observers may
have a fractional vote. This would only be formally counted on a
formal call for enumeration by any full seat. <br>
<br>
Attempts to bind the Assembly by creating rules that the Assembly
may not disregard are actually forms of dictatorship. An Assembly
must be free. Trusting rules in the place of people is, again, a Bad
Idea, primitive thinking. Yes, rule of law was an advance over the
arbitrary exercise of state power, but rule of law is also what I
call the"dictatorship of the past." Consensus organizations run
afoul of it when it is considered to take a consensus to overrule a
consensus. It creates, in actual practice, minority rule, where the
status quo favors a minority. Constitutional systems have this
problem, where the constitution overspecifies procedure.<br>
<br>
I've gone around and around on this, and always came to the
principle that the majority always has a right of decision.
Sometimes this must be exercised very carefully, because the goal in
democracy should be and ultimately must be consensus, not mere
majority, or the community is weakened and divided.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+Df2txozkEQ+r_cBjpc8+=KR9ZNwvAkLCH3Ee7_PZf++aMLSw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div>. <br>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div id="m_-2979412911552235613divtagdefaultwrapper"
style="font-size:14pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif"
dir="ltr">
<p style="background:rgb(244,244,244);margin:0in 0in
0pt;line-height:22.5pt;vertical-align:middle">
<span style="color:black;font-size:14pt"><font
face="Calibri">A: If so, I've heard that idea
before, and I think it's clever but probably
unworkable in practice. I doubt that it would
integrate well with the parliamentary
authorities (e.g. Robert's Rules of Order) that
legislatures actually use to get things done.</font></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Calibri">It could be done, particularly as a tweak.
However, the exact implementation is better left to the Assembly,
which has the right to rule on membership issues. Routinely, a
chair may effectively pass a question or issue a ruling by stating
"If there is no objection, X." Any member may object. If there is
no objection, nevertheless, any member may, at least in the same
session, move reconsideration, being considered part of the
majority (unanimity, actually) that approved the measure.<br>
<br>
In a reasonably aggregated Asset Assembly, it would be rare, my
opinion, that much more than a single seat's quota of votes will
be dregs. The election rules may make it easier to compromise for
the dregs. If dregs, electors holding unassigned votes, can
function in a limited way, and if they have the right to withdraw
assigned votes, they can safely assign their remaining votes to
some compromise.<br>
<br>
The basic Asset idea creates an electoral college whose members
are public, identified voters. It is the electoral college that
fully represents the complete electorate, all that voted, so the
Assembly is, then, properly, a trusted servant of the College. It
is in the College that, literally, *no vote is wasted.* And if a
voter wants to go to the trouble of participating, the voter may
register as an elector and participate, subject to the rules as
may be necessary to maintain order.<br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+Df2txozkEQ+r_cBjpc8+=KR9ZNwvAkLCH3Ee7_PZf++aMLSw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div id="m_-2979412911552235613divtagdefaultwrapper"
style="font-size:14pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif"
dir="ltr">
<p style="background:rgb(244,244,244);margin:0in 0in
0pt;line-height:22.5pt;vertical-align:middle">
<span style="color:black;font-size:14pt"><font
face="Calibri"> </font></span></p>
<p style="background:rgb(244,244,244);margin:0in 0in
0pt;line-height:22.5pt;vertical-align:middle">
<span style="color:black;font-size:14pt"><font
face="Calibri">S:<span>
</span>Given that, unlike all the other methods,
EPR thoroughly guarantees the principle of
one-person-one-vote, I would be very surprised
if anyone could sustain the claim that it
violates Robert’s Rules of Order.<span>
</span>Please explain the specific concerns you
have in this regard.<span>
</span>Also, even if this principle were
incompatible with these rules, I would say: so
much the worse for these rules.<span>
</span>This would require these rules to be
suitably modified.<span>
</span>What do you think? <span> </span></font></span></p>
<p style="background:rgb(244,244,244);margin:0in 0in
0pt;line-height:22.5pt;vertical-align:middle">
<span style="color:black;font-size:14pt"><font
face="Calibri"> </font></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>Have you been in a meeting run by Robert's Rules?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I have served, both as a chair, and as a parliamentarian, though I
was never formally trained. In my view, the duty of the chair is to
empower the members. While I would rule a member out of order, I
would also advise the member how to do what they wanted to do,
within the rules. That had nothing to do with whether or not I
agreed with the member on this or that issue. It was about
empowering the community, in using deliberative process to maximize
consensus, which creates stronger organizations.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+Df2txozkEQ+r_cBjpc8+=KR9ZNwvAkLCH3Ee7_PZf++aMLSw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There are lots of votes, and each one usually takes
less than 10 seconds. ("All in favor say aye. Those
opposed say no.") If the majority is obvious, the chair
will say "The ayes have it," or "The noes have it," and
we're done. It relies on everyone's voice being about
the same volume and everyone having an equal vote. I
think a voice vote is not really legitimate in a
weighted legislature unless it's unanimous<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
So "without objection" would still work. If the exceptions to equal
voting are rare and limited, it could still work, and weighting
would only be done with a roll call vote. Under most rules, I think,
that takes a majority vote, or some rules allow some specified
percentage of the assembly to require a roll call. In a roll call
vote, it would be easy for the clerk to weight votes, even all of
them (i.e., if electors are allowed to vote directly, say by
internet voting, then "normally assigned votes" to seats would be
deweighted by that fractional vote, representing the removed
elector.<br>
<br>
I strongly advise anyone supporting Asset to keep implementation
simple, leaving tweaks that complete the principle of "no wasted
votes" to the maximum possible, for Assembly rules, later. Right
now, we don't have, in any assembly, anything approaching full
representation. Moving to, say, 95% full would be a revolution.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+Df2txozkEQ+r_cBjpc8+=KR9ZNwvAkLCH3Ee7_PZf++aMLSw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If the majority is not obvious to the chair, or is
challenged by anyone in the body, they do a rising vote.
("All those in favor please rise." Count. "Be seated.
Those opposed please rise." Count.) It takes a minute
or less.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Right. Roll call takes slightly longer.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+Df2txozkEQ+r_cBjpc8+=KR9ZNwvAkLCH3Ee7_PZf++aMLSw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>How should a weighted legislature do a quick vote?<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A) Do a voice vote, and if it's not unanimous then do
a rising vote with everyone holding up a sign with their
vote weight, and have someone add up all the weights
instead of just counting the number standing?</div>
<div>B) Do every vote by computer?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
No, not every vote, only votes where a roll call is requested, per
the rules. But, yes, using computers. Smart phone app, with
terminals available. Not every kind of issue. Questions of
privilege, if a vote is required, would be decided by the number of
persons present and voting.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+Df2txozkEQ+r_cBjpc8+=KR9ZNwvAkLCH3Ee7_PZf++aMLSw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Honestly, lots of votes are unanimous, so if a group
gets good at it, it might not add that much time. But
with any vote that's close, it's going to take five
minutes instead of one. In any case, that's just the
one thing that's on the top of my head. I've never
studied Robert's Rules, only attended meetings. I'm
imagining there are other things in the book that need
to be changed to work with a weighted legislature.
Maybe I am wrong.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Whenever the assembly is so divided that it's close, rush to
decision is a Bad Idea. With an Electoral College, full weighted
voting becomes possible. That's all. If it is merely an Assembly
rule, all kinds of things can be tried with little harm, because the
majority can change the Rules at any time. Asset would create the
data and the body of registered public voters ("electors") to make
direct-representative democracy possible.<br>
<br>
Existing election systems and strong-party democracy have created
conditions where we don't trust our representatives. So we want to
bind them with rules, not realizing that they then become experts at
evading restrictive rules. Lack of trust in "politicians" is a core
problem, and it is not solved by "throw the bums out," which simply
creates more politicians appealing to knee-jerk responses. Asset
throws the issue of representation back on the public, totally, and
makes the primary issue one of "whom do you most trust." Period. No
other strategy needed, and, yes, you can vote for your next-door
neighbor, or that movie star, or a professor, or *anyone you choose*
-- including yourself, if you want to spend the time on governmental
issues.<br>
<br>
(An election code should be free on request, a number that can be
entered on a ballot to designate an elector. Listing the code in a
directory should require a small fee to cover costs. $5? Whatever
the cost is for a single phone-directory type listing in a cheap,
newsprint booklet. An on-line directory of all registered electors
should be free, and accessible from any smartphone. Computer voting
stations would have access to that directory so that voters can
verify their entry is the right person. Canvassed votes would have a
listing available showing all votes by precinct. Some secret ballot
election systems allow identification of the voter for legal
purposes. It's done with paper ballots by having the voter sequence
number on the back of the ballot; when votes are counted,
physically, the back is not visible, but if a need arises to audit
the election, the voter can be identified. Details.)<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+Df2txozkEQ+r_cBjpc8+=KR9ZNwvAkLCH3Ee7_PZf++aMLSw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm all in favor of finding an expert on Robert's
Rules, or someone becoming an expert, to figure out such
changes. (Also other changes, like using other voting
systems for making council decisions.) We could also
talk about writing a whole new parliamentary procedure
to implement new things, but then you'd want someone who
was even more of an expert in parliamentary authorities
and parliamentary meetings to make sure you're meeting
the needs of a working parliament.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
No, we should concentrate on voting methods, our purpose, and leave
Assembly procedure to the Assembly. Have you ever seen a full public
vote on the Rules of a deliberative assembly?<br>
<br>
Deliberative assemblies use simple majority rule at present.
Weighted voting is a tweak on that which moves toward "majority" as
referring to majority of the voting public rather than majority of
Assembly members. But I prefer, greatly, to create a "trusted
assembly" and empowering them, fully. In legal matters, I may
designate a proxy and I have never burdened that proxy with many
specified "rules." Choose someone you trust, then *trust them*.
Otherwise, life becomes very complicated and simply doesn't work.
Choose well and then trust your choice unless you have strong
reasons, or simply no longer trust the person, then choose someone
else. If I can't find anyone to trust, I'm probably the problem.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>