At 05:45 AM 8/29/2006, Rob Lanphier wrote:
>I realize I wasn't being fair to you on the applicability of Delegable
>Proxy (DP).
You are not unusual, except for one thing: you noticed. That's actually rare.
>I'll be referring to my system as "PH", for "proportional hierarchy".
Reasonable enough.
Hi Abd ul-Rahman,
I realize I wasn't being fair to you on the applicability of Delegable
Proxy (DP).
I'll be referring to my system as "PH", for "proportional hierarchy".
More inline:
On Sat, 2006-08-26 at 23:23 -0400, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> But, it hit me, what if, instead of a fixed str
At 01:42 PM 8/26/2006, Warren Smith wrote:
>Yes, it does bear some resemblance to A.Lomax's proxy ideas.
>I too have devoted some thought to these ideas.
Warren, it should be noted, appears to have independently invented
Asset Voting, which is effectively a single-user delegable proxy (DP)
syste
I think Jan Kok makes a good point, with the "people's" or "free" selection
scheme,
anybody unhappy with the ir rep can simply move to a new 7-set of people, so
eventually everybody will be happy with their reps. At that point,
the hierarchy yields fair representation, I suppose.
wds
electio
I think "free choice" might be a little better than "people's choice"
as a term to describe how the proxy structure is created in Abd
Lomax's DP method. The proxy-client relationship is created by mutual
agreement of the proxy and the client.
As a political activist, I wish I had some special powe
Yes, it does bear some resemblance to A.Lomax's proxy ideas.
I too have devoted some thought to these ideas.
However, I suspect Lomax's ideas are better and Lanphier's worse. Or I
understand neither.
Specifically, as far as I understand it, with Lomax's proxies, you can
select anybody on the pl
