Sorry about The formatting Its a re post the first one got rejected by the server! Assume all Quotes are down one Level. thanks!
Howard Swerdfeger wrote: >>>> "Put all your eggs in one basket and watch that basket like a hawk!" >>> General advise: If you do this, in any respect you must be reasonably >>> certain that if some threat does come to your "eggs" you have >>> 1. The ability to see the danger coming, >>> 2. The ability to act and move your "eggs" to a safe location, before >>> danger strikes. >>> >>> even if you watch it like a hawk. >> >> That's right. Now, if we have, as described in another post, assigned >> proxies for all electors -- that's simple, it is part of the required >> registration process -- then it's not true that all the eggs are in >> one basket, for if that basket is destroyed, there are clones of the >> eggs ready to step up.... > > I believe we have made an abrupt left hand turn with this analogy. > buy "destroying the eggs", I intended that would happen if you voted in > a manner (on any bill) that you did not approve of. > > Not, that my first proxy got hit by the #96 bus going out to Kanata, or > some such thing, and I needed a fall back proxy. > >> However, if we look at DP, which is *very* similar, we can see that >> voting for the big famous influential person would generally be a >> mistake. > > How sure are you of that voting for "famous influential person" would be > a mistake in a liquid/proxy/asset voting system? > What factors do you believe would lead to this being the best strategy > for most voters? > >> Your vote can and will get there eventually, but it's far more >> effective to have someone you can talk to. What most people have is a >> model of a very isolating process, and they think of election methods >> in this context. They don't think about, "Can I call up and talk to my >> representative? Once a month if I want to?" "Who do I tallk to if I >> have a idea that I think worth considering?" > > Did you want me to answer that in context of liquid/proxy/asset voting, > or my current democratic system (Westminster system, Canada) or yours? > >>> I also think if you are going to choose someone who has a small number >>> of votes that you are best to split it up, as you are farther down the >>> decision tree and are thus more likely to have your vote perverted away >>> from your desires. but then again after splitting it up my votes would >>> again merge at a higher level...."All roads lead to Rome", after all. >> >> Again, I understand that people think this way. But if you really >> think that your own opinions are sufficiently researched that them >> being followed up to a high level is important (to you!), then you >> really should register as an elector and vote for yourself. Then, you >> might well cast your vote for that important influential fellow. But >> you might consider, it might be better to vote for someone who has >> *access* to that fellow, whereas you, with one vote, won't. > > er.. perhaps you did not understand me. > In the above paragraph I never mentioned that I thought my own opinion > would be "sufficiently researched", on the contrary I would fully take > advantage of the proxy nature of voting. > > I was stating that if I did choose to split my vote that both my proxies > might choose not to vote and give there vote to the same person. thus It > would have the same effect as if I did not split my vote and instead > voted for that super proxy instead. Thus I would come back to the > original problem I had or a single point of failure in my personal proxy > chain. > > >> When the big important fellow votes a way that you don't like, >> wouldn't you want to be able to talk to him about it? *Maybe he had a >> reason* that would convince you if the opportunity were there.* Or are >> you rigid in your own ideas? You have a right to be.... but it is also >> dangerously foolish. Now, practically by definition, you can't call >> the big guy up. But you can call someone who can. > > which is why I would probably vote for a second rung guy. or a first > rung guy if I found one that voted in a way that I approved of. > I would not vote for a 3rd or 4th level guy. > Cause calling Sue, to ask bob, to tell bill, to leave a message for God > that he is not voting the way I like is not going to be effective. > > besides with 10 people on the first level and 100 on the second it is > highly likely that I would find somebody in those 2 levels who vote in > accordance with my wishes 95% of the time. > > I may not have direct access to Level 2 guys but I can switch my vote > when I am not happy. > >> Once again, what Asset is setting up is a deliberative system, but >> some persist in thinking of it as an "election method." It's >> understandable, because if the candidate set is restricted, it looks >> somewhat like an election method. But it is much more -- and much >> less. It depends on being a public process, otherwise there would be >> no way to negotiate the vote transfers, and it is this negotiation and >> agreement that makes it work to not waste votes. > > Bah, it is a method of making a decision or series of decisions, no more > no less. > >> >>> change of topic: >>> How large do you envision this tree or trail of representatives being? >>> >>> i.e. I and 20 friends vote for some guy we all know, he transfers to >>> some regional Rep, who transfers power to a city rep..etc...this might >>> easily go on for 6 or 7 levels... >> >> Perhaps. But, remember, the structure that is set up is delegable >> proxy, and it is not necessarily part of that for the actual vote to >> transfer. If you want to transfer your votes, you just transfer them. >> But if you want to reserve judgement, then you wait for the structure >> to come back to you, *through your proxy* for a recommendation. You >> can then look at the traffic between these people -- if they make it >> open to you -- and see how they made what choices they made. If it is >> being recommended that you transfer all your votes to a specific >> candidate, you can *then* research that candidate. >> >> But, again, if this is direct democracy *at the Assembly level*, you >> are not actually giving your votes away. You still have them. Rather, >> you are using your votes to create a seat, which is someone with two >> roles: to represent you in *deliberation*, and to vote for you if you >> don't vote directly. >> >> How many levels? Well, in FA/DP it actually does not matter! >> Everything coming back to you is filtered by your personal proxy. I'd >> want a proxy who shared with me *his* traffic, so I'd have access to >> information from higher levels. Nevertheless, if we have a standard >> direct client count of 20 average, then we represent about 20^N people >> with N levels. The considerations about communication apply to *all* >> levels. I.e., each proxy would want the ability to communicate >> effectively with their own direct proxy. > > you make assumptions, I don't need to talk to him as long as he votes > the way I want. I can guess that he will based on previous voting > records. and if he consistently (>5%) doesn't vote my way I would > probably get pissed and change my proxy. > > But I am sorry for getting away from the point. > So a City would have 4 point somthing levels, Canada would have about 5 > something levels, The USA 6 something, and the Planet 6 point something. > On average that is! > > I can't help but think your assumption of 20 people per proxy is an > under estimate based on your own preference, I feel many like my self > would prefer to be closer to the real power at the expense of personal > contact, thus putting a downward pressure on decision tree, causing its > average length to shrink in large democracies....but who knows...we need > one first before we can know for sure. > > Communication directly, >> skipping levels, is certainly possible, as is cross-communication (you >> talk to your friend who is in a completely different proxy tree, if >> you can convince your friend of something, he or she can then inject >> the idea into this other tree). But the default, guaranteed available >> (relatively) path is with your proxy. >> >> With a state of, say, 20 million people and an Asset Assembly and, >> say, fifty seats, each seat represents 400,000 people. It takes >> between four and five levels, closer to four average. > > fair enough. > >>> I expect that if an asset or proxy system was implemented on large >>> scale, between 10^6 and 10^9 people. the ultimate and final word on all >>> decisions would be made by 5-10 large proxies. The question becomes how >>> many close advisers could they have, (i.e. the people who transfer the >>> most votes to them). >> >> The system is a fractal, hence one of the names is fractal democracy. >> It is self-similar at each level, because the same communication >> constraints drive the proxy count, though, perhaps, the number of >> clients increases toward the top. Why? Well, we haven't talked about >> money, but as you get high in this system, you have opportunities to >> collect enough to hire staff, and an actual seat holder would >> presumably have staff at public expense (though, in fact, one could do >> away with this, it's a libertarian solution that might work). If you >> have staff, you have, effectively, a class of proxies underneath you, >> so you can handle communication with more clients, without it becoming >> ineffective, so the count could increase. >> >>> I'm really just trying to think of this in terms of a tree of power. >>> How many would make the final decision? I know you like to rant about >>> how an individual could if they want vote on every bill, but that >>> individual will likely not matter at all. >> >> Perhaps. But that also does not necessarily matter at all. *Usually* a >> single vote is moot in any case! It's quite rare to see ties in public >> elections. But this all bears deeper thought. It's truly outside the >> box, and we have reflexive thinking that no longer applies. It took me >> years to get beyond certain assumptions that were very natural, and I >> see that others also hold these assumptions. >> >> In an FA/DP organization, nobody makes the final decision, there is no >> final decision. There is merely a negotiated set of recommendations, >> from the whole or from any subset, that go back down to the individual >> electors, who *retain* the pure voting power. It's a direct democracy, >> *not* a pure representative democracy, representation is *only* for >> purposes of making deliberation efficient, it is not necessary for >> decision. > > most people will not vote on every bill (I think). therefor there is a > default centre of power. > > >> >>> As you got down the power tree what is the likely number of branches you >>> would have coming off at each level? What would the average depth of the >>> tree be? >> >> It's a math question, and not difficult. > > It is a social and technological question, I think went over that above. > >>> My guess is it would be a very short tree, and that a large majority of >>> the population would be in the first 3 or 4 levels >> >> Perhaps. DP structures, I predict, will constantly adjust themselves >> for communication efficiency. My original thinking was to have >> restrictions on the number of clients. But the capacity of client to >> handle traffic, and the needs of the clients, can vary widely. And so >> I realized that it was not necessary to restrict the client count, it >> properly should be a free and mutually agreeable contract. We *want* >> the rapport and flexibility that this represents. >> >> The argument against the concentration of power assumes that a >> superproxy holds too much power. But that's not true, what power the >> superproxy has is continually restrained by the direct clients of that >> superproxy, and to a lesser degree by the entire structure. The direct >> clients will be in constant communication with the superproxy, and >> decision-making rules would provide for notice of "meetings," which >> are required for a decision to be binding. And every single elector >> can vote at "meetings." But can't stand up and make a speech, or >> introduce a motion. That takes being a member with a seat. That, >> indeed, is what seats are for, for solving the problem of scale in >> democracy. > > I never said anything in favour of or against limiting the number of > proxies. > ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info