On May 17, 2004, at 2:06 PM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:
On May 17, 2004, at 12:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And if you count on the senate/parliament to set up mutually exclusive
options for a multiple choice vote, they could abuse that and make
exclusive things you might want both or more of. No system is so perfect
it doesn't require the members to be Good.
I agree, but I want to at least make it easier and more natural to do the right thing. Systems often inadvertently create built-in incentives to do the -wrong- thing, and I presume one of the purposes of this list is precisely to create systems which maximize the incentive to be Good, though we can't of course force Good behavior.
For example, it seems to me that Robert's Rules explicitly require or assume a one-person/one-vote Plurality type of decision-making, and it thus (naively) inconsistent with rank-order voting. Is that a fair assessment? Further, that sort of winner-take-all result seems to lead to a sort of Duverger's effect on committees.
~"The worst system possible, except for all the rest of them."
The dynamics of information flow have changed since Robert's Rules organized what would otherwise be an unruly bunch. What are the dynamics of the new systems and how can we best take advantage of them? This is still an open question and thousands of e-commerce and web enabled projects haven't found the best thing yet. I'd guess the closest base we have is Slash or Scoop (the engines behind slashdot.org and kuro5hin.org). But while they organize discussion, organizing decision making and voting is still not addressed. Scoop is closer as it lets every member vote on the merit of every post. Attaching a Proxy system to that could really amplify the effect to find the most salient comments.
If this were adapted to legislating, comments become bills and amendments ...
One of my biggest concerns about PR is how to avoid excessive minor-party influence. I suspect this sort of parliament PR with rank-order choices ratified by a DD-proxy assembly might well be the optimal way to avoid that, by ensuring the maximally acceptable policy is both generated and approved. I'm just saying that we need some sort of procedural reform to at least *enable* people to do the right thing, even though we can't force it.
I suppose the scenario your imagining goes like this:
Factions A,B and C which control 40%, 40% and 20% of the voting power. C wants it's evil little plan to go through, and so trades a tit-for-tat with A or B. C supports B's evil plan, and B support's C's. B and C are otherwise neutral on each other's plans, but A strongly dislikes both. Minorities get their evil little plans passed when more people don't want them than want them.
That's a tough problem, but I'd rather deal with that problem than with a Two Party system where the extremists are driving each party and the centrists get taken for a ride. (Maybe it's not better, but at least it'd stir things up and give everyone a chance while the old power brokers have to learn the new game too.)
I think dual-membership should be forbidden. Members of the
senate/parliament should be disenfranchised from the proxy-assembly vote.
This special case disenfranchisement of 100 ouf of 3e8 doesn't trouble me,
given the powerful vote they have in their legislative body.
Meaning they can't even specify someone as a higher-order proxy anywhere? Its a plausible argument, though I think it would suffice simply to not allow them to -be- a proxy for others; they can still specify someone else as their proxy.
Perhaps. I'd say they can't vote directly, or be a proxy. They must chose a proxy or not vote. Members of a normal bi-cameral don't get any vote in the other house, not even a millionth of a vote. I'd rather keep it that way. I think such a system has more "Purity". Of course, they can speak all they want, and they'll have their vote in their own house. That's enough influence.
Brian Olson http://bolson.org/
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
