At 12:01 AM 11/14/2005, James Green-Armytage wrote: > Issue independence: Even when there are multiple issues on the same >ballot, I should have the option of indicating separate proxies for >separate issues, while still voting directly on other issues, if I choose.
James is one of the delegable proxy pioneers, along with myself, Mikael Nordfors, and the guy who came up with "Liquid Democracy," whose name escapes me at the moment (possibly because he has to some degree disowned it?) I'd be interested to know of any other early writers on the subject. (Anything during or before 2002 is of interest; my own concepts go back to the 1980s, but I don't have written evidence and I was not actively promoting the ideas.) It appears that delegable proxy was independently invented in at least three or four different places. Having said that, and noting that I agree with nearly everything James wrote in the paper he posted, I here disagree. The whole point of a proxy is to represent a person to an organization. Issues will arise at meetings that could not be anticipated; the proxy acts in one's absence. Corporate proxies function in this way. Yes, with *different* organizations, one can and people do appoint different proxies. Within one organization, however, setting up alternate proxies demolishes the simplicity of single proxy designation, and it vastly confuses delegability. I'm not denying that somewhere, sometime, this might be a good idea, but it is going to be quite enough of a task to get the relatively simple concept of single delegable proxy implemented. If there is a need, delegable proxy organizations will be, I believe, quite readily amendable. This is part of the concept, indeed: delegable proxy is, among other things, an idea-collection network, where ideas are filtered by friendly filters. So I *highly* recommend starting with single delegable proxy. Any issue where the member thinks his or her position is sufficiently different from the routine proxy's position, and if the member thinks it important, the member can always participate directly, and if some issue needs to be presented at a higher level for which the member does not enjoy full participation rights, parallel representation, informally, will be easy. And the informal rep would simply advise the member, if needed, to vote directly when a vote comes up. But I don't think that will be necessary very often. I think people will largely let their single proxy handle the business unless they have a personal and special interest, in which case they will participate more directly. An important key here is the separation of voting rights and discussion rights. In an FA/DP organization (FA stands for Free Association) members always have the right to vote directly (just as with corporate proxies, and subject only to practical limitations), but they do not necessarily have the power to grab everyone's attention. In a very large organization, there would be, I would presume, a basic organization mailing list, to which every interested member could subscribe who wanted to follow the central activities of the organization. But that list would have different classes of membership. Some members would have the right to post directly, others would have to have posts approved. Note that any member who has direct posting rights can effectively approve messages even if not a moderator, simply by forwarding them to the list. In a DP organization, a proxy level (number of people represented, directly or indirectly) might be a simple way to determine who gets full rights. But FA/DP organizations would not start with restricted lists. They would start, I assume, with open lists, and restrictions would only come into use when traffic began to exceed what a majority of members considered acceptable. And there is a great deal of thought that has been put into these ideas, but I won't repeat it here..... Unlike other representative organizations, though, restriction of participation does *not* bring with it restriction of the right of decision. There is good reason to restrict full participation in large organizations; the problems of intractable meetings are the reason why New England towns abandoned Town Meeting when they grew large enough; but this rationale does not apply to voting rights, and *especially* it does not apply when the internet makes it possible for large numbers to follow a debate and form intelligent opinions about it, and to participate in polls. As to the argument that many or most voters are not qualified to make decisions on public issues, I respond that this may be true; however, first of all, people, when they can easily find good information, make much better decisions than we might think, and, secondly, the question is *who* decides who is qualified and who is not? I submit that if we want a democracy, the one who decides is the voter himself or herself. Under delegable proxy, the voter either participates directly, or leaves it to a trusted proxy. And if that proxy, again, considers himself insufficiently informed, or is otherwise unable to participate, then there is the next level proxy.... I'd suggest keeping that very simple. If it is simple, it does not take complicated software to keep track of proxies, and while there may be a central database, the real proxy system is intangible, in the relationships between members, who can recreate the whole structure quickly even if the central site disappears or is hijacked. Organizations often lose their way because gatekeepers pursue their own interests. And then: >If corporations were required to allow for delegable >proxy voting, then I as a small stockholder could potentially delegate my >votes to nonprofit organizations that shared my values with regard to >corporate policy. You can do this now. Without delegable proxy, it is only slightly more complicated. If I understand correctly, a shareholder can designate *anyone* as proxy. It may even be possible, correct me if I am wrong, to designate a corporation, a legal person, as proxy, in which case the legal representative of the corporation is the effective proxy. So I think you can do this now. Even if the rules require a person (not a corporation) to be named, one would simply name the person recommended by the nonprofit. I don't think that the proxy must be himself or herself a shareholder. That proxy has the right to attend and vote simply by holding a proxy. Another writer seems to have misunderstood this proposal. There was no proposal that a nonprofit, or any other organization, represent shareholders who have not chosen to permit or implement this. If I want to delegate my proxy for shares in Microsoft to, say, a nonprofit organization promoting open source software, that is and should be my absolute right. This takes nothing away from any other shareholder; essentially, if you think that this is foolish, fine. You don't do it. It's my money at risk from owning the shares, and so it is my right to participate as I choose, just as it is yours to do likewise. There is no need for changes at law. Shareholders interested in delegable proxy can simply form an independent association to create the structure, and that association can recommend to members whom to designate as corporate proxy. Delegable proxy organizations, theoretically, should be highly efficient and so the organizational overhead for doing this should be trivial. All it would take is a few shareholders interested in making it easier for themselves to be effectively represented at the annual meeting. Large institutional shareholders already hire proxy firms which do exactly that. FA/DP organizations of shareholders would make it possible for small shareholders to exercise similar power, for, collectively, they do have the resources; the trick is to coordinate those resources without creating a serious organizational burden (which would defeat the purpose). And there is no intrinsic conflict of interest between large institutional shareholders and small shareholders, so they might share resources, a possibility which could benefit both. I think that as soon as one such organization exists for shareholders in a major corporation, it will be successful, and it will be imitated.... this is one of the possible implementation paths I see for delegable proxy. *It is not necessary to change the laws, nor the corporate rules.* But if changes do become necessary, such organizations could rather easily develop the power to cause them to be implemented. The power is in the hands of the shareholders *already*, but they keep expecting the cart to lead the way. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
