> At 10:00 AM 8/30/2006, raphfrk at netscape.net wrote:
> >I think another big issue is that something like this is actually annoying
> >until you hit the scaling issues. In a forum with say 20 users, you don't
> >actually need it. However, by the time a forum hits the "big time", the
> >system is already in place. Changing it to a system that scales better
> >is harder at that point.
> >
> >I think that a possible method would be to find some community that is
> >suffering from the scaling problem and offer them a solution.
>
> Control the filters and you control the intelligence. This is the
> danger of filters, but, obviously, large-scale communication requires
> filters, for noise grows with scale; "noise" includes not only
> irrelevant information and analysis, but also what is redundant.
One option would be to create a standard for interfacing of many different
systems. For example, Internet Protocol does not define how any
individual network has to operate. It just defines the interaction
between networks. IP runs as an application that runs on top of
other network protocols.
The trick for getting something like that to work is to keep the
standard as general as possible while at the same time allowing people to
do anything that they might like.
For IP, it is things like handling packets and various issues with
assigning addresses and performing routing. Arguably, one of the
flaws of early IP was that it didn't provide a way to do
connection orientated communications. This meant that that
couldn't be implemented, even if the underlying network could
handle it.
Anyway, for something like a proxy system, you could try to
come up with an API. On the one hand, it could be argued to be
centralised. However, even in open source software, they
still use standards. A good standard is one that streamlines
ensuring compatibility while at the same time doesn't limit
the various methods of implementation.
If you did a really good job, the API could cover a wide range of
methods. One person might implement it with an online forum/mailing
list and other might implement it with physical meetings and both
systems could interact due to the API.
> When
> you are searching for information or commentary on some topic, and
> you come across a thread somewhere which discusses it, it is quite
> annoying -- and time-wasting -- to have to pour through a series of
> useless posts of the nature of "I agree," or "That's wrong." (Without
> explanation, so all we get from these posts is one bit, literally, of
> information that is irrelevant unless we have some special reason to
> trust the particular writer, whom, in practice, we don't usually know
> at all.)
One option here would be to have a button where a person can click
"agree" or "disagree". There would then be a total near the post.
I wonder if something like a super-wiki would work. This could
have multiple versions of the same article being editted and also
some way of merging two slightly different versions of an
article together.
> Part of the problem was that they understood "proxy voting" to be
> absentee voting. I quite understand this objection. Someone who is
> not present cannot generally have followed the discussion and respond
> to the various amendments or arguments that may have arisen.
In fairness, with proxy voting there could be a (large?) group of
people who will insist that there proxies do just that. However,
if they were in the same room as the debate, they would be more likely
to be reasonable.
I wonder if "asynchronous voting" could help with that.
Something like:
Proxies attend town meeting and discuss issue.
Proxies contact the people they proxy for over the following
week or so and explain what was discussed at meeting and how
they will be voting
Anyone can withdraw/transfer their proxy at this stage
2nd meeting held for the actual vote
This means that nobody can vote unless they have at least
received a report from their proxy about what happened
at the meeting.
This would allow compromising of one issue against another,
the proxy could say "well I know this isn't what we wanted,
but if we agree, then we get this other thing that we wanted."
> Rather, as we understand proxy voting, the proxy
> generally casts a vote seen as being in the interest of the client,
> *in the immediate judgement of the proxy.* Because we are generally
> assuming that a proxy is a member of the organization himself or
> herself, we generally assume that proxies will simply cast their own
> vote, and the vote of the client is assumed from that. The systems we
> would set up, in general, would not allow a proxy to cast a vote for
> the client that is *not* the proxy's own vote.
It could very well come down to organisational "culture". I am
not so sure that there won't be alot of people who won't pick
proxies who are unmovable by debate. Picking a proxy you trust
is hard. Picking one who will vote a well defined way on every
issue is alot easier.
> His point was that those who want to have access can get it. He's
> right of course. If they want it enough to put in the necessary time,
> which can be considerable, they can generally gain access. That is
> true everywhere. Problem is, the vast majority of people don't have
> the time. So they are effectively shut out.
The issue is that for any kind of negotiation, there must be a
penalty for not coming to an agreement. Time is often used as
the penalty.
If a person/group is willing to sit at a meeting for 2-3 hours
and not budge an inch, then it can be implied that they really
care about the issue (or as you say have alot of time on their hands).
This also applies in buisness negotiations, if a person spends all
day and isn't willing to lower their price, then maybe it really
would bankrupt them.
The Senate Filibustering system is the same kind of thing. If you
are willing to meet the filibuster consditions, then you likely
care more about the issue.
Hmm, maybe proxy voting could be assumed to be a method to remove
the cost to the individual of being a hold out? (and that would
be a bad thing)
> Town Meeting allows all citizens of the town to vote directly on Town
> issues by attending Town Meeting. However, there is a huge group of
> Town citizens who are effectively locked out by this. For starters,
> single mothers.... Town meeting is always held in the evening, and it
> can go on late on occasion. There is no absentee voting at Town
> Meeting. And, of course, proxy voting is not allowed.
Systematic biases are obviously a bad thing. What about something like
this:
The total amount of time for a town meeting is divided equally between
all potential voters.
When you set someone as a proxy, you are granting them the right
to use your time allocation.
Time not used in one meeting can be carried forward to the next (with
probably a limit to how much can be stored). A proxy uses up the same
amount of time for all people he is proxy for, so they all bear the
burden equally.
No vote on an issue is final until nobody wants to spend any
more of their time trying to convince others to change their mind.
No meeting may run for longer than the planned duration. A
meeting may end early if nobody else wishes to speak. Votes
which haven't been finalised by then, are tabled until the next
meeting.
This means that everyone has equal time to speak. If you really
don't want an issue passed, you can have your proxy use up all
of your time holding out and preventing the issue from being
finalised. However, this means that you lose power for other
issues as you have spent all your time on this one issue.
The advantage is that all voters would be effectively granted equal
time allocations. If you can't attend, you give your proxy the right
to spend your time allocation. Also, it creates an incentive not
to say "vote this way no matter what" as if you do that, then he
will spend your entire allocation blocking that one issue from being
voted on.
Also, there would probably be a rule that some time (say 25-33%) is
"free" and speakers are picked at random. This would given non-proxies
(who probably have only 30-40 seconds "in the bank") a chance to speak.
In practice, there might even be a rule where a proxy can say
"... and I speak for 15 more minutes". He wouldn't have to actually
speak, it would just remove 15 minutes from the maximum time the
meeting can run.
---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
