Dear folks! A question concerning proxy voting: Does anyone know of a mechanism for delegable proxy which assures that nobody knows what any other voted? In particular, it seems to me that no person X must know whether or not s/he is a proxy for some other person Y, and Y must not have a possibility of proving to X that X is Y's proxy. Otherwise Y could force X to name him as proxy! Is this possible without the use of advanced technology like, say, public key cryptography?
Yours, Jobst Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 05:04 PM 2/27/2006, Simmons, Forest wrote: > > >>It does my heart good to see this kind of discussion. > > > It takes a good heart to be warmed by this.... > > >>>Yes, that is the solution I came up with. A meeting determines what >>>is the optimum size, N, then the N proxies with the most votes are >>>full members. It would actually not be difficult to do. >> >> >>My response: >> >>It seems to me that each connected component of the DP network >>should have a seat in the assembly, unless that makes the assembly too large. > > > Consider the context of my proposal. Every member of the network has > a *vote* in the assembly, so every member participates in determining > if there are to be any restrictions on full participation. Generally, > those restrictions aren't necessary until the assembly actually gets > too large, though even in small organizations, it can be found > necessary to restrict an individual. This is simply the right of the > assembly to protect itself. (in FAs, no member can ever be expelled, > but a corollary is that nobody is forced to meet with someone > personally, with whom they do not wish to meet, except and unless > both parties are high-level proxies and they both desire to seek some > kind of organizational unity, which I presume high-level proxies will > generally value. > > The only reason a loop (your "connected component") would not have > *full* representation would be that the loop closed or terminated > without having reached a sufficiently-trusted proxy. The continuation > of that situation would be voluntary, unless the loop were so > "deviant" from the large majority of members that they couldn't find > rapport with any of them. Remember, if they can find anyone to trust > outside their group, they have enlarged the loop. Outsiders may > simply negotiate with each other to agree on a common proxy, bringing > them over the threshold. > > But it is not necessary to have full participation rights to > participate. Participation really only involves finding a proxy with > full rights willing to enter a motion or pass an idea on. Of course, > if a proxy does that in a way that harms the group, that proxy might > face censure. But if the idea has any merit, I'd think it would not > be difficult to find a proxy who would think it worthy of > consideration, if for no other reason than to bring the "deviant" > group into the fold by giving its ideas consideration, to the point > that these ideas would find proper inclusion in the consensus. > > >>In that eventuality one possibility is to require each of the >>smaller components to attach itself to one of the N larger >>components by delegation. > > >>But this solution bothers me because the "require" is a constraint >>that violates the otherwise voluntary delegation principle. > > > It ought to bother you. Great minds think alike. :-) I think the > value of fully voluntary delegation, aside from natural consequences, > is so great that the harm from lack of full privileges is outweighed, > by far. Essentially, if you can't find agreement outside your small > group, you *deserve* to be somewhat isolated. But FA/DP organizations > would present so many opportunities for connection, and so many of > the fully-qualified proxies would want to be as inclusive as > possible, that I doubt that serious isolation would take place. > > Restriction of full participation is actually essential; however, > suppose I'm wrong about that, that there is a way to allow everyone > to participate fully with incurring the well-known harms from it. > Meetings, remember, establish their own rules (that is actually part > of Robert's Rules, as it should be); all it takes is one full member > of the meeting to move that restrictions be lifted, and all those > "excluded" members can vote on it. > > I value consensus, but I do not want the seeking of it to become, as > it often does in consensus organizations, minority rule where the > status quo favors a minority. The majority retains the right of > decision and the natural power that it has merely by being the > majority. (If it is a true majority.) > > >>Another thing that bothers me is that even the largest of the >>natural components of the DP network might be so small that that the >>N=500 largest components together might fail to represent even one >>percent of the population, total. > > > I think that as proxy level rises, the proxies will be better and > better able to find good proxies for themselves. We won't really > know, however, until we create such organizations. > > But my opinion is that there is so much benefit from collecting > proxies in single individuals on a large scale, in terms of > efficiency and cost -- remember, I consider that the time that > members put into an organization its "cost," and in an FA, it is > almost the only cost, or at least the overhead, there will be project > costs, paid directly to projects by the members who support the projects. > > People will be motivated to seek those they trust, since it will > relieve them of the burden of redundancy. There are *not* 500 > factions in any organization, and trust in a proxy does not have to > be absolute. > > >>These two objections might not obtain in typical cases, but it would >>be nice to have a method that finessed these potential problems, >>because when there are problems at the extremes, manipulators have >>incentive to press towards the extremes that favor them. > > > FA/DP organizations will be, I predict, practically invulnerable to > manipulation, if they have a certain set of founding principles that > are well-understood by the members. FA/DP organizations are free to > become whatever they want, they could abandon the freedoms and > restrictions that preserve them, but they won't if they understand > why they are there, that is, if they understand the organizational > hazards that the rules are designed to avoid. > > The power of FA/DP is in its fractal structure; in particular, if the > assignment of direct proxies takes place on a small scale, where, > say, only 20 people directly choose a single individual as their > proxy, corruption would be extremely difficult and ineffective. I've > thought, sometimes, that this number should be limited, but, same > principle as you stated above, it would be an infringement on the > members, who must remain free to make what we think are mistakes. > > I just know that *I'm* not going to choose a proxy who represents so > many people that I cannot reliably communicate with him or her. And, > on the reverse side, I would not want to *accept* more proxies than I > could comfortably call in a few hours. That's *direct* proxies. There > is no natural limit to the number of indirect proxies. > > (And this is why delegable proxy is an inevitability. A single layer > of proxies runs into the problem of scale, just at a bit higher level.) > > We aren't going to truly understand the problems of delegable proxy > until there are real organizations using it. Hence my project to > start FA/DP organizations, or to encourage others to do so. Try it. > You'll like it. > > And I really want to encourage anyone who cares to join with me. > BeyondPolitics.org, in its conception, is itself an FA/DP > organization, I am merely a trustee at the moment, and I would never > abuse that trust contrary to the FA principles. (I.e., suppose that a > majority of members want to do something that I just cannot abide > with. I might, as one possibility, turn the web site into a simple > page referencing two new sites: one being controlled by me and > whoever agreed with me, and the other being controlled directly by > the original majority, however they wished, together with a consensus > description of what happened (a consensus description can include > unresolved controversy by stating multiple points of view). In other > words, I would not use my position as trustee to bias the future of > the organization in whatever direction I might happen to personally > want. There are ways to ensure fairness and equity without controlling others. > > FA/DP organizations can quickly and easily split, but they can just > as quickly and easily merge. And there is usually much more power in > merging, if ways can be found to cooperate. > > ---- > election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info > ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
