At 04:43 PM 2/26/2006, Jiri Räsänen wrote: >Dear James Green-Armytage, > >Well, I'd like to make a distinction first. What you propose is a >system of _direct_representation_. >Direct representation means a system where a representative uses the >amounts of votes that he/she has got in the election.
It's such a simple idea that it would be a wonder if it had never occurred to anyone before. >The first time the idea of direct representation appeared over a >century ago. (I have the facts somewhere.) The fact is that "direct representation" is quite equivalent to proxy representation, which is *common*. Proxy representation is a common-law right: whenever one has a property interest, one has the right, unless specifically prohibited, to name someone as an attorney-in-fact, to exercise whatever powers one would enjoy oneself. For efficiency, shareholders would often share a proxy. Thus, as Mikael Nordfors has pointed out, proxy democracy is what rich people do; his efforts have been directed toward extending the benefits of this to people who are not otherwise rich. His term for the proxy is "advisor," which I like because it emphasizes the downward communication aspect of the proxy, something often neglected in delegable proxy proposals, but which I consider critical. Delegable proxy is not merely a voting system. There is no need for it as a voting system alone, because, for a long time, direct voting has been possible even in large organizations, and the internet has made direct voting completely easy and practical. But who has time to participate in the many organizations that might potentially allow direct voting? What happens in nearly all organizations which are simple direct democracies without using proxy representation is what I call the "dictatorship of the active." Extremists of all kinds have used the procedures of direct democracies to take over organizations, simply by being organized and dedicated; in a union, for example, most of the members have families and responsibilities that would keep them from attending meetings, especially long and contentious ones. The proxy is ideally *not* a rubber-stamp for the opinions of the represented member. The proxy, instead, stands in for the member, functioning as a synapse between the activity of the member and the activity of the organization. I have seen direct democratic organizations that prohibited proxy voting, on the argument that the represented members weren't at the meeting to hear the debate, therefore their votes would be uninformed. And this, of course, is a misunderstanding of what a proxy is. While a proxy might agree with the represented member to vote in a certain way at an upcoming meeting, the proxy *is* at the meeting and, by the rules of the organization, ought to be (and legally is allowed to) make his or her own decision on the spot. You choose as proxy someone you trust to do that on your behalf. Synapses are not merely relay stations for nerve impulses. They *filter* information, generally. They filter it in both directions. Not every nerve impulse from the periphery is passed on to the center, and not every movement or impulse from the center is passed on to the periphery. Fortunately. We could not function if they were. What is new is not proxy representation, or "direct representation," but *delegable* proxy. The automatic delegation of proxies, where A -> B and B -> C, in the absence of both A and B, becomes A+B -> C, should make proxy representation possible on a much larger scale than would otherwise be functional. I know of only one effort, so far, that actually attempted to implement this, Demoex in Sweden, and they abandoned it for technical reasons -- buggy software --; yet delegable proxy does not require computers at all. It simply requires a list of current proxy assignments. Maintaining and sorting that list and extracting vote results from it is made easier with computers, but it does not require computers or the internet, these merely will facilitate it. >The idea has been proposed by a several individuals later on. At the >moment, there are at least two organisations proposing direct >representation. One is The Finnish Citizens' Power Association, and the >other is the Center for Collaborative Democracy ( >http://www.democracy2000.org ) I'm out of the loop as far as the Finnish organization, probably because of language. However, what I think has been missed by many delegable proxy proponents is that in the absence of experience with DP, most people aren't going to support it, no matter how good the idea looks to those who study it. Most people won't study it. I've spent four or five years now trying to promote the study of the idea, so I know. Of course, I'm just me. If there were more people involved working on it, and they were working together, more would become interested. Society already has its filters, to protect it from being inundated with wild schemes. This is the paradox: if DP already were being used, it would be easy to obtain appropriate consideration of ideas like DP. This is because DP would create an network of filters, where the information is filtered through relationships of trust. So if I have an idea, I know exactly whom to discuss it with, someone I trust, who will either pass it on or explain to me, *personally*, why he or she is not doing so. And then I can either accept this and understand why, or I can look for someone else willing to put up with my wild ideas. This analysis, again, will lead one to understand why the mass solication of proxies is non-functional, it is merely an attempt to exercise unwarranted power. And we see such a thing happening right here, with the solicitation of my proxy be someone whom I don't know and who, apparently, does not know me. And some will give that proxy, and this will mean *nothing*. Only if I check out the work of this person and decide, yes, I trust this person, and this person will be available to me -- neither of which I now know, would it be wise and functional for me to entrust him with my proxy. This is *not* in any way a criticism of this person, and I applaud his effort, within the structure presented to him. But that structure, as far as I have seen, is not going to make a major impact, in my opinion, for a series of reasons that I will discuss when I have time to continue this. On the other hand, *any* effort to implement DP will further the cause, for even failures will generate experience and an understanding of how to avoid the problems that crop up. So we should watch this experiment, and I might even join, but I won't bypass the standard procedure in order to give added voting power to someone I don't know. Rather, I will join and participate as allowed. I won't *run* for proxy, which I consider an abhorrent practice! -- and this is exactly what is suggested in what I've seen from the organization. "anyone can run." Yes. But not a very bright idea. As they say, same old same old. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
