Forgive me for not understanding, but what is the purpose? As a voter, it is much harder for me to make a separate ranked list of proxies for each issue than it is just to express my opinion for each issue.
-----Original Message----- From: James Green-Armytage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 11:28 PM Subject: [EM] direct democracy / proxy system proposal >Dear election methods fans, > > Here is my proposal for a direct democracy system that incorporates a >proxy system. Please let me know if I am repeating someone else's ideas. > > Each voter is able to have a standing list of proxies. The list can be >ranked, although it is unlikely that any entries after the first one or >two will be important. Voters can change their proxy list at any time, and >they can also destroy it at any time and leave no substitute. > On a given issue S, each voter has 3 options: > >1. Specifically vote on the issue. (This could include formally >abstaining.) >2. Indicate a specific proxies or ranked list of proxies, other than those >indicated on their standing list, just for the purpose of their vote on >issue S. >3. Do nothing, in which case their voting power goes in the direction >indicated by their standing proxy list (assuming that they have such a >list on file). > > If a voter specifically votes on the issue, then of course their vote >registers directly. > If a voter indicates a new proxy list specifically for issue S, the >effect for that issue is the same as if they had indicated their standing >proxy list by default. In either case, a proxy list is indicated. > If voter A indicates voter B as his first proxy, and voter B votes >directly on the issue, then the weight of voter A's vote is added to voter >B's and cast the same way. > If voter A indicates voter B as his first proxy, voter B indicates voter >C as her first proxy, and voter C votes directly on the issue, then both A >and B's vote are cast as C's vote is cast. And so on. > If voter A indicates voter B as his first proxy, and voter B makes no >indication at all of his vote (that is, doesn't vote on the issue, doesn't >indicate a proxy for the issue, and doesn't have a standing proxy list), >then A's vote is transferred to the next proxy on his ranked list, instead >of to B. > > A paradox might arise if A indicates B as his first proxy, B indicates C >as her first proxy, and C indicates A as his first proxy. > One (somewhat arbitrary) rule I have devised to resolve this is as >follows: > In the above case I would define a path such that A's vote has traveled >the path A-->B, then the path B-->C, and then the path C-->A. > The rule is that a vote should not travel along the same path twice. >Hence, once A's vote returns to A, it should not once again move from A to >B. Instead, it should travel to the next proxy as ranked on A's proxy >list. The same will go for B and C's votes in this example. > This rule is not especially important, since such paradoxes are not a >serious concern, and other rules are possible. Still, one must have at >least some rule to resolve this. > Another possible rule is that a vote shouldn't be assigned to the same >person twice. Hence in the example above A's vote would be transferred to >C's next choice, rather than being assigned to A once again. > > As for the voting method used to decide the actual issue, that is left >open here. For a single winner issue, I would tend to prefer beatpath or >ranked pairs. For a multiple winner issue where proportional >representation is appropriate, I would tend to prefer Meek STV, local >CPO-STV or CPO-STV. Other methods are possible, though. > > The reason I think that it would be good to have a proxy system is that >people will not necessarily have the time to become educated on a given >issue, but perhaps they know of someone who might, and whose views they >tend to agree with. And in turn, it is possible that this person won't >have time to become educated on this particular issue, but knows someone >who might, and so on. > The reason I think that it would be good to allow people to allow >different proxies for different issues is that it will enable people to >indicate people who are knowledgeable in the field that the issue relates >to. For example, if the issue is relevant to the environment, then the >voter may indicate an environmentalist, or a staff member of an NGO that >deals with the environment. Or the voter may just delegate her vote to >someone whom she knows has educated themselves well about that issue in >particular. Even though an average voter would not always be able to make >these distinctions, their proxies and their proxies' proxies might. > > I do not intend to suggest that such a proxy system would make a >legislature of elected representatives unnecessary. I think that it would >serve as a complement rather than a replacement to representative >government. > Indeed, the official strength / bindingness of such a direct vote is left >open, that is, whether it creates law in itself, whether it is subject to >amendments, revisions, vetoes, etc. There might be many situations where >it is attractive to have such a direct vote, but have it not be legally >binding. That is, where the public are able to express their opinion >actively (rather than through the use of randomly sampled polls, etc.), >but the final decision is left to the traditional structures of >government. > Actually, this non-binding vote might be the best place to start from, in >order to build public participation and trust before investing legal power >in it. > > Of course, the communication medium that would support this process is a >difficult problem, which is already under debate. The internet is the >obvious choice, but then there is the issue of security, that is the worry >that someone may be able to hack into the system and change the outcome of >the vote. Also there is the issue of access, that is the fact that not >everyone has equal access to the internet. However, if such problems are >ever satisfactorily addressed, I hope that the resulting system of direct >democracy will look something like the above. > >sincerely, >James Green-Armytage > >---- >Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
