At 08:25 AM 3/15/2007, Howard Swerdfeger wrote: >Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > > I think that it should be understood that in small groups, "repeated > > elections" is the normal decision-making process. Robert's Rules, or > > similar parliamentary rules, proceed with frequent votes on relatively > > minor options, including amendments, motions to table or refer to > > committee, as well as votes on whether or not the assembly is ready to > > vote on a main motion. > >One could look at it that way. But think generally the votes are all >with the same people, and generally they are of the same opinion at the >first vote as at the last vote (But not always).
This is not a description of deliberative process. Deliberative process debates every vote before the vote is taken. If it were true that "generally the votes are ... the same [as they would be at the outset], why bother with all those boring speeches. Just vote! You could argue that the speeches are grandstanding, to inform others of why speakers are going to vote a certain way, but it is a rare *real* society where people simply hold fixed opinions. Besides, having an opinion on one motion does not mean that one would therefore reject any alternative motion. Quite simply, it is not true that in deliberative process, as actually used, "people are of the same opinion at the first vote as at the last" and it is not even clear what this would mean, if the first question and the last question are different. Remember, votes in deliberative process are generally Yes or No. Not A, B, or C. > > My own opinion is that the majority, quite properly, has the right of > > decision and that rules which prevent the majority from exercising this > > right are oppressive, in the end. > >I agree, however I feel that we must recognize two things. Firstly that >a majority is not always a static thing, the values and opinions of >society are often changing. Yes. And it is best if they change *during* the election process, particularly after voters become more informed due to that process, both as to arguments and facts that might affect their vote, but also as to the opinions of others and the balance of power of those opinions. > Sometimes the opinion on some topic over >time has a clear trend, and sometimes it is static hovering around the >same value for long periods of time. In both of these cases there is >some degree of noise in public opinion over time. Hopefully, it isn't noise. Change in opinion can come from wavering and what I had for breakfast, but "clear trends" don't result from that, in general. Rather they result from, often, learning. >What if we assume the longterm average of some opinion in society stable >at 45% support. But let us also assume that depending on when the >polling is done it will go up or down 10% (35%->55% range). >Let us further assume that the person in charge of deciding when the >vote is held can make a good guess about when the short term variations >in support for this decision will be at its highest. In a deliberative body, there is no "person in charge of deciding when the vote is held." A chair may function in this way, but only with the consent of a majority. Typically, Robert's Rules requires a two-thirds vote to close debate and proceed to vote, so if a chair decides, "It's time to vote," and starts to say "All those in favor...." anyone can "Object!" And then the chair is obligated to respond, most normally by asking for a motion to close debate, to "Call the Question." Usually that motion would be made and seconded, and then the chair would hold an immediate vote. Not on the main motion, but only on the motion to close debate and proceed to vote. Note that if a majority really considers it an emergency to go ahead and make a decision, they can override this whole process, bypassing the normal cloture rules. In the U.S. Senate this was called the "nuclear option," because it is seriously dangerous, uprooting precedent. There better be a good reason! In practice in large deliberative bodies, some persons can hold serious power, allowing them to determine timing. But this is, in my view, a corruption of democracy made possible by the needs of large assemblies for efficiency of process, and better avoided -- and I think there are ways to avoid it. >I am not overly interested in consensus in the context of this >discussion. In general I find it hard to reach for anything over 8 >people or so. It can be. And, in fact, I agree that in large groups, it normally becomes quite difficlt. And this is where most people stop. But what if there is a way to reduce a large number of people to a small number, acting on behalf of nearly all of the large number? Take whatever number is a good compromise between full representation and process efficiency, i.e., making full consideration possible of all needs that are at least represented by a member of the reduced group, and set the assembly size at this number. This does not have to be a real assembly, it could be a working group or committee within one. Or just an independent organization of voters. And this is Delegable Proxy, as we expect it could be used, and we propose the *immediate* -- i.e., as soon as possible -- formation of Free Associations to use it to seek consensus and then recommend it to members. These are "Free Associations" because they are free in many respects, most notably they are, as associations, free from bias, and they leave members totally free with regard to the exercise of power. There is no "dictatorship of the majority" in them, because the FA is not actually making the final decision on anything, that power remains with the members. The FA merely acts, through *complete* representation -- as nearly complete as is possible -- to find a maximized agreement *prior* to participating in public process such as elections. >I agree society can often be harmed by delay. But as counter society can >also be harmed by the decisions of Transient majority. That does not >hold with the longterm popular opinion. I believe there needs to be >balances to these two opposing threats. Sure, but *who decides the balance.*? My claim is that the proper arbiter is the majority, acting directly or by proxy. What some utopians try to do is to set up a rigid system to enforce a presumed balance. But if the majority is informed -- or, more likely, those who represent it are informed -- the majority can presumably consider the argument that a premature decision will harm society. A good system for making collective decisions will, in my opinion, maximize the intelligence and wisdom of these choices, and I think I know how to do it. And if it is correct, my understanding, a relatively small organization using these principles would generally be more successful than those using alternative principles, and thus might grow rapidly. It starts with a very few people who understand the concept.... and that is extraordinarily difficult to find. Even though the concepts are very simple, from my point of view. There are maybe two or three people in the world that I'm confident understand it. That's progress. Several years ago there was maybe one. At this rate, how long will it take? (My guess: about ten, maybe twenty years before FA/DP *or something better* is exercising major influence. It could be as little as a year, though, or it could take longer. Or it could become moot.) ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info