On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 02:52:20 -0400 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 01:14 AM 3/29/2007, Dave Ketchum wrote: > > >>The real topic here is whether new legislator terms start the >>instant someone gets enough proxies filed, or seats change with >>enough advance notice for those involved to make needed adjustments. >> > > That's correct. What I'm suggesting is that voting rights immediately > respond, but that deliberation rights float to some degree. You've > travelled to the capital, you rented an apartment, and then somebody > changes their proxy and you lose your seat?
The proposal here is that proxies become effective (both as to floor rights and voting power) some time after filing - I suggest 10 days. Thus you would know your future status for the next 10 days. Now, if you were on the edge of losing your seat, renting an apartment is a bit dumb. More profitable activities right now would be: Campaign to round up some more proxies. Concede that you do not have that much support from the voters and give up. Do a sideways proxy to give a legislator who shares most of your goals your votes. >>>Ketchum has here given an example of a possible problem from >>>immediate effectiveness of proxies. I'm suggesting that it isn't a >>>problem at all, not if the rules are appropriate. And I am far less >>>concerned about delay in a proxy becoming effective than I am about >>>the reverse. If my vote isn't counted, that is a small problem. If >>>my vote is counted against my specific wishes, that is a large >>>problem. And we were talking about revocation of proxies, not of >>>the effectiveness of new ones. >>> >> >>If a change in proxies means different delays between the old proxy >>ending and the new one taking effect, the legislature will have either: >> A period with no support for those voters, or >> A period when those voters will have double representation. >> Abd disagrees, but not convincingly. > DP and other proxy assemblies can be smaller, ordinarily, than > standard peer assemblies, for a given level of completeness of > representation. Having ten percent more seats would mean, probably, > less than ten percent more communication traffic. Not a drastic > change, particularly if temporary. Interesting thought, and size is a topic for careful thought. I suggest two limitations: Number of seats in the legislature, filled by the candidates with the most proxies. Minimum proxies to occupy s seat. I suggest 1% to vote; 2% to have floor rights and thus full membership > The confusion arises because we think it best to assign seats based > on votes. But that is just an *indication* of whether or not someone > should have a seat. I've thought that legislatures might give some > people seats who don't have any votes other than their own. Interesting thought. I do not propose such, but do not object to legislatures managing such affairs themselves. > >>Direct voting would be a complication that would make the basic >>proposal harder to evaluate. Such comparatively minor changes could >>be considered by themselves later. >> Abd suggests that direct voting is more important than electing via proxy. I disagree. >>Also, legislators HAD BETTER not vote until they have at least an >>opportunity to understand what topic is being voted on (rather than >>copying the US Congress which is too much in a habit of voting >>without bothering to understand). >> > If Ketchum is saying that those who vote should understand what they > are voting on, great. But who decides who is competent, who > understands enough? My claim is that the proper one to make this > evaluation is the voter himself or herself. Direct democracy by DP, I > expect, will *increase* the participation power of exactly the right > people, those who are widely trusted by those who know them *closely*. > Anyone who is TRULY competent should be able to convince enough voters to provide proxies as backing. > >>>> I do propose getting voting rights on less proxies than for >>>>floor rights - which usually would mean paying attention to floor >>>>activity in order to vote intelligently before getting floor rights. -- [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