On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 00:18:00 -0400 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 05:43 PM 3/25/2007, Juho wrote:
... >> (This >>applies also to many other discussions on this mailing list on the >>relative merits of different voting methods and discussions on "which >>one is best".) To me it seems obvious that FAs and legislative >>processes need different parameters, the expected behaviour of voters/ >>members is different etc. Often concrete examples of the intended >>environment help me in understanding what cases the discussed >>theoretical concept are expected to cover. Proxies can be used in >>many different ways, as this stream of discussion proves. ... > > As described, Trees by Proxy so constrains the citizens that some of > this is lost, though it is unclear to me that these constraints are > essentials of the system, but rather seem to me to be artifacts of > the theoretician's additional opinions. For example, if we imagine > Trees by Proxy as proposed by Ketchum, and then we add to it the > following provisions: > > (1) Voters may vote directly at any assembly by showing up and > voting, technical constraints permitting. This presence does not, in > itself, give them other participation rights. Two thoughts: This is not normal for legislatures and not needed for what I propose, so talking of it would be a distraction. For some legislature to do this would be to make up their own luck. > (2) Proxy assignments can be revoked at any time by notice to the > affected bodies by the principal. Since I propose EXACTLY this, sounds like carelessness. Actually, he wants them to take effect instantly - something I see as too destructive. > > These changes would bring the proxies into conformance with the basic > concept I've described, and it is not clear to me that they would > alter the basic function of Trees by Proxy, except to make it more > democratic and free. In what follows he seems to want a legislature to have unlimited freedom in setting up its own rules. While a legislature should have some rule making ability, I believe experience has shown that much of the rules BETTER be standardized. DWK > > In considering these matters, one thing has become clear to me, that > there are two sources of power and function. Voting rights come from > the citizen and depend totally upon the continued consent of the > citizen, who can substitute his own vote as desired (where practical, > and generally it could be made practical), but "floor rights" are > granted by a deliberative body, according to its rules. Floor rights > might depend, provisionally, on, say, the number of proxies held, but > they need not be restricted to this, and, in particular, an assembly > could continue the floor rights of a member for a time even if the > member loses proxies to fall below an established threshold. There is > no harm in this; the *voting power* of the member is reduced. > Similarly, an assembly might delay the admission of a new member > based on number of proxies held having reached the threshold. > > It's all about what the *assembly* decides. And with proxy voting as > the norm and direct voting allowed, it would seem that we would have > the best aspects of direct democracy and representative democracy combined. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026 Do to no one what you would not want done to you. If you want peace, work for justice. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info