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
