It also sounds like we agree that these voting issues will need a lot of hashing out in terms of finding amendments, and coalitions, etc.
The problem with a pure proxy setup, however, is that there is a disincentive for anyone to adopt the duties of a super-proxy. Time, and financial opportunity cost. If it's all purely ad-hoc, then it means that someone becoming a proxy would not be compensated for it. The only people with the resources to become a proxy are the ones that are already employed in a very similar market as their interest group, or people that are independently wealthy, etc.
Since there is a disincentive for everyone to vote on every little issue, and there's also a disincentive towards becoming an even more occupied proxy, I do not visualize how this would scale.
So while the proxy system and the Direct Representation system are otherwise similar, it's part of why I like the Direct Representation system - it's a set number of n members in the legislative body, all of which have staff - government positions - and will therefore have the resources to do the necessary legislative work to go from step 1 of representation to step 2 of consensus building.
On May 14, 2004, at 6:01 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
You wrote:
I like that, but one thing that strikes me about it is that it would still require a person to make a judgment on every issue - whether they want to keep their proxy, or vote directly, or switch their proxy, etc.
I reply:
Yes, now we have no such decision to make, and so we get to let our "representatives" make all the decisions for us. I claim that it would be good to be allowed to make that decision. And we needn't make that decision on every issue. We could make a blanket decision to leave all of up to our proxy(ies). Or we could vote only on the most important and controversial issues, such as the war against Iraq, at its inception, or at its occupation stage.
By the way, though ordinary the ballot should be secret, anyone voting in favor of a war should have to accompany that vote with infantry enlistment and a binding, irrevocable promise to fight in that war, with his/turn in combat to be in the same order as his/her vote for the war. War advocacy votes from people unqualified for combat wouldn't count. Anyone could vote against a war.
You continued:
People like to categorize, and many like to go the forest-instead-of-the-trees route. Many would rather just feel like someone is doing a good job at representing their interests.
I reply:
Good, and such a person could make a blanket choice to just leave it up to hir proxy.
You continued:
From that, what would probably happen is that some proxies would end up amassing a huge number of voters.
I reply:
Good. The people have spoken.
You continued:
The other thing is - if everything is merely voted on, how are the bills revised and hashed out? Who does that?
I reply:
The automated system would continually be receiving initiative proposals and qualifying votes for them, 24 hours a day, every day. Anyone could propose a counterproposal or amended proposal to any proposal. Such a counterproposal or amended proposal would be labeled as such by the proposser, and eventually the original proposal and all the counterproposals and amensded proposals woudl be voted on in one big multi-alternative election, in which one alternative would be "status-quo".
There could be procedural proposals, "motions", including the linking of several similar proposals for one multil-alternative election.
A voter could filter out all proposal other than those by certain names. Or could use a sophisitcated search system to find proposals of a certain description, or a combination of description and proponent name.
A system similar or the same as Robert's Rules could be used for procedural matters. Anything that can be done in a meeting coud be done in this Internet/telepoll system. Yes, some things would have to be done differently due to the greater number of participants.
You continued:
All this points me back to the idea that I'm still really quite intrigued about - Direct Representation. The one over on Dave Robinson's site. You still have your representatives, but there's a direct link rather than a geographical one.
I reply:
But that's exactly how it is in the proxy system.
You continued:
That means those interest groups that are significant nationwide but always in the minority in a locality (atheism comes most quickly to mind) have representation. If any representative falls below the mathematically-designed cutoff point required to be in the body, then they're voted out, in effect.
I reply:
Depending on the capability of the computer system, there may not be any need for such a cutoff threshold.
You continued:
People can switch their representatives when they want, and the representatives are there to both hash out/amend issues, and also form voting coalitions.
I reply:
Good point. Proxies could contact eachother and hash things out, such as amendments, just as you describe. All that's possible in the proxy system or proxy DD.
PR advocates disparage the proxy system because it would take too large a meeting place. That's an 18th century objection, now that we have the Internet and telepoll technology.
Of course if for some reason it were necessary to meet at a meeting place it might be necessary to limit the number of proxies. Then proxy STV could be used, in which there would be no surplus transfers, just more powerful representatives. Of course some here have proposed better PR methods based on Condorcet or Approval, and those too could be adapted for proxy PR. I won't get into that because I don't deal with PR.
With existing technology the system needn't be limited to a meeting place, and could use the Internet or telepoll technology.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee� Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
