On Apr 20, 2010, at 6:55 AM, Raph Frank wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Duane Johnson <duane.john...@gmail.com
> wrote:
The voting process would go like this:
1. (By some process outside the scope of this proposal), it is
determined
that an issue needs to be voted on
This could be an issue, as controlling what people get to vote on
represents considerable power.
Indeed. But thoughts evolve, and Listening Democracy is more the
beginning of a thought than an end. Thank you for participating in
its growth :)
2. The issue is publicized and some citizens become aware of the
issue
3. Of those who are aware, some citizens are concerned and want
to vote on
the issue. Each engages in the following process:
a. The citizen registers as a voter and receives a voter ID
b. The voter approaches a potential endorser (e.g. friend or
relative)
and asks to hear their point of view for the vote
c. The endorser tells their point of view
d. The voter summarizes their point of view in writing
e. The endorser agrees that the summary is a correct
representation,
endorses the writ, and registers the endorsement
f. The voter repeats steps (b) through (e) for a SECOND endorser
g. The voter is now qualified to vote, and votes.
This seems pretty open to abuse. You just need to get 2 people to
sign that you listened to them.
Since the objective is to improve communication in order to generate
more informed decisions among people, the worst that can happen is
people lie to each other and no listening occurs. The voter is
ultimately going to vote how they want (just like the present system),
but the Listening Democracy system encourages them to listen to two
other people's opinions first.
But you are right that it's easier to forge a signature than actually
listen to someone. My original thought was to include the summary of
the endorser's opinion on the public record. Then it could be cross-
checked and challenged if it appears to be fraudulent. But requiring
opinions to be public has its own pros and cons.
The Listening Democracy system emphasizes, formalizes, and rewards
listening in the decision-making process. The system is an
improvement over
direct voting because it ensures that each voter synthesizes
information
external to them. It assumes that decisions reached through
discourse are
generally better than those reached by merely counting isolated
opionions.
One of the reasons representative democracy is used is because people
don't have the time to consider the issue.
Well organised groups (often called "special interests") have a big
advantage over dispersed interests (the "general interest"). The
point of democracy is to give the general interest a voice.
Ofc, with current systems, special interests (as always) still have an
advantage.
However, with your proposal, these groups could enhance their voting
power further by ensuring that their members have a much higher
percentage registered to vote.
Remember, however, that registering to vote does not guarantee that
you can vote: if there is a scarcity of endorsers on your side of the
issue divide, you will have to go to the other side, or, as you
pointed out above, do something illegal.
Also, if you make it harder to vote, less people will bother.
Do we want the difficulty of voting to be evenly distributed? I tend
to think that if we want to optimize good decision making, we want to
make it harder for people who are less informed to vote (i.e. not all
information in a system is equal). Requiring discussion as a baseline
for qualifying to participate in the decision-making process seems
like a fair requirement.
Crucially, however, it does not exclude people who do not reach
that bar
from significantly influencing the system.
Huh? If they don't reach the bar, they don't get to vote.
I guess they could just refuse to endorse anyone who they disagree
with.
Correct. And problems that people are facing will rise faster as
information in the system, since voters have to be a little more
informed than in the present system.
An important element of a Listening Democracy is the ranked
ballot (and
subsequent pairwise tally, see Condorcet Method on Wikipedia).
The voting method used is separate from the voting rights component.
As mentioned earlier, the system is "viral" in the sense that it
systematically involves more and more of the population.
Well, viral normally means choice. It would be more accurately
described as excluding everyone from voting and then re-grant the
right back in a viral way.
Also, viral means starting small and getting bigger. It is like how a
spark can create a fire.
Was the viral nature of my proposal weakly conveyed? Viruses are not
normally chosen (I tend to think of "viral" things as choice-neutral),
but I can see where you are coming from with regard to the connotation
associated with "viral marketing".
The "starting small" that you mentioned would refer to the few people
who are normally engaged in a social issue who, generally, are already
"in the know". Those who are in the know are few and those who are
"unaware" are usually many. I imagine the voting / discussion process
to take place over the course of a few weeks or months, so that by the
time it's done everyone has had a chance to become "virally" involved.
By evenly (i.e. without discrimination) applying a restriction on
the
number of people who can vote, the value of a vote increases, just
like
currency.
Individual votes are effectively (almost) worthless now, but people
vote for social reasons.
I am referring to perceived value here, just like currency is
perceived value. Musical Chairs is an active game because if there
are 7 people and 6 chairs, everyone knows that they could be left
without one unless they act.
When endorsements are hard to find, more
discussion will be required across tribe-like boundaries.
I think "tribes" would be well advised to conserve their endorsements.
Each person outside the tribe who is endorsed is half an additional
vote for the tribe's enemies and half a vote lost for the tribe.
I think you may be underestimating how much some people want to be
heard. Democracy, generally speaking, grants us each a voice, but
does nothing to encourage us to listen. People might even be willing
to give an "enemy" half a vote in exchange for being understood.
What about vote buying or "endorsement buying"?
Vote buying would actually be much harder in a system of Listening
Democracy. Consider first of all that an unscrupulous citizen
would have to
buy out 3 people to get 1 vote: a voter and his or her two
endorsers. An
unscrupulous citizen might try to buy the voter after he or she has
achieved
endorsement, but then a voter would feel doubly guilty for using or
possibly
even backstabbing close friends or relatives. It seems that
Listening
Democracry would promote honesty in society better than any law could
enforce it.
Vote buying is already illegal.
However, since the endorsement system is public, you do run the risk
of voter intimidation, so there is more risk of it.
If a "mob-boss" recommends that you endorse members of his party, then
it would be public if you did it.
The problem is that the people who are elected then are the ones who
enforce the law. This was the purpose of the secret ballot.
This is a good point, one that I hadn't considered.
Btw, you should look into the delegable proxy system. This is also
designed to allow effective communication without overloading the
voters.
Thank you, yes, I was originally writing a Haskell program that
implements the delegable proxy system when I started to consider the
Listening Democracy idea. The Haskell program is available at http://github.com/canadaduane/votelib
Regards,
Duane Johnson
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
