At 07:12 AM 3/2/2006, Jan Kok wrote: >About DP: > >In political or government organizations that deal with many different >issues, wouldn't it make more sense for people to have multiple >proxies to represent them on different issues? For example, I might >have a hard time finding one proxy who would represent my views on all >the issues that concern me. I would like to have one proxy who is an >expert in voting methods and supports my favorite method to represent >me regarding voting reform; I'd like another person who specializes in >drug war issues and supports my views to represent me regarding drug >war issues. And so on.
What makes sense is to have organizations to deal with each issue; then the "universal* organization (i.e., the government, or, much more easily, the general political advisory organization) would synthesize the various general agreements that form in the specialized organizations. The general political organization proxies should be chosen for general trustworthiness; for them expertise in specific areas is not necessary. >For communication from the top down, it seems to me that existing >newsletter mechanisms work reasonably well. Who controls what is in the newsletter? > For example, I get >newsletters from various legislators and PACs that tell me about >upcoming and past legislation, and how those legislators voted or >intend to vote. In a DP organization, those communications need to >get passed down in a timely manner, so people can discuss items of >disagreement with their immediate proxies, or switch proxies if they >wish. Proxies will use newsletters to communicate with those they represent, but that communication should not be and will not be limited to this. Proxies will communicate *directly* with those whom they *directly* represent. It's not just information that is being passed, it is personal analysis, recommendations, intuitions, etc., and the communication is back-and-forth (made possible if direct proxies are not to many for a given proxy.) Switching proxies should not be routine, someone who is constantly switching their proxy probably should look at themselves. Why is it that they cannot find someone to truly trust? Is it that nobody is trustworthy. Probably not! Yes, people would discuss items of interest with their direct proxies, whether in agreement or disagreement, both are important. But if a person anticipates, or discovers, that their proxy will or has voted contrary to their own conviction, the simplest remedy is to vote directly. Only if the action raises an issue of trust would it be reasonable to consider switching proxies. If one finds oneself constantly intervening to vote direct in this way, then, of course, switching a proxy could be more efficient. If you can find one to accept you. This aspect of DP as I envision it is crucial: proxies must *accept* the proxy, for to carry a proxy is a burden, accepting it is accepting the right of the one represented to communicate with you, perhaps to telephone you or meet you in person. Should proxies be effective without acceptance? I think it is dangerous. It's necessary, of course, with secret ballot proxy, but in open systems, I see no advantage; an unaccepted proxy does not represent a real communications link. It does, if not fraudulent, represent an action of trust; but I would prefer to see proxies responsible for determining that the proxies that they receive are not fraudulent. Direct communication would be part of this validation process. (Email addresses are easy to multiply. One person may have many email addresses. In an FA, it does not matter so much, since a fraud is much more wasting his own time than that of the organization by multiplying addresses, but FA/DP organizations will be a possible model for subsequent adoption of DP in governmental organizations; why not work out the kinks when it is easy and when mistakes won't do much harm?) >How does one become a proxy? How does one rise in the hierarchy of proxies? You become a proxy when a member of the organization chooses you, and, I suggest, when you accept the choice. There is no action that one need take to rise in the hierarchy; indeed, as a fractal, the DP structure is likely to be self-similar whatever the scale. All you need to do is, on the one hand, to participate in whatever level your proxy status allows, and, on the other hand, maintain communication with those you directly represent. (Those who want to rise in the hierarchy may well be not the ones one would want to rise, i.e., the most trustworthy. In an FA/DP organization, being a proxy is a job, it takes work, but the DP structure distributes the work so that no individual is overburdened, unless, of course, they take on too many proxies.) It would help to remember that DP is a formalization of what already happens informally and spontaneously in peer groups. People talk to each other, and people stand in for each other; if one person is absent from a meeting, another will fill the person in on what happened. DP formalizes this so that it becomes reliable and more thoroughly inclusive. But it isn't something totally new. Cells communicated with each other before nervous systems evolved. Nervous systems did the job faster and more reliably. There are no known functioning formal DP organizations as this is written. It's been tried, briefly, by Demoex in Sweden, and apparently it worked, though not necessarily without perceived problems (the one reported to me was that one person ended up representing almost everyone, which was seen as a problem; I'd say it was a feature, not a bug, but if that person thought it was too much of a burden, the simple remedies would be (1) not accept so many proxies, and (2) recommend to those members whose proxy one does not accept that, if they trust you, instead name So-and-so as their proxy. If there is nobody else willing to serve as intermediate proxy, I'd say that the organization is not ready to take on the responsibilities of government, as Demoex was attempting. (I'd be very interested in receiving reports of how Demoex is doing....) However, there is a proposal being made, sometime in the next few months, to use DP in a Parent Association at a school. The mechanism would be simple: a list, probably on a wiki, would be editable by parents. On that list they enter their name and name a proxy, and the proxy acknowledges with an acceptance. The naming and acceptance constitute an agreement on the part of the proxy to keep the parent informed, as necessary, in the judgement of the proxy. And it constitutes an agreement on the part of the parent to be available to communication from the proxy. There are already class reps to the Parent Council. Many parents may decide to choose their class rep, others may choose someone else. And, of course, some won't do anything. All we can do is to make it all very, very easy. One effect will start to become clear early on, I expect. We will start to be able to measure how connected the parents are with the actual Parent Council meetings. Looking at the list of proxies and the list of those who actually attended, we will be able to estimate who is getting news and who is not. And we can act to bring those completely absent (not there in person or through a representative) into the organization, not in any way that demands that already busy people put in more time, but in a way that makes it easy to remain connected. Every parent will know exactly where to take concerns. There are already problem resolution mechanisms, but often the parents don't know about them, and sometimes parents feel awkward taking a complaint about one teacher to another staff member. With DP, they can take it to their proxy. (In a small organization, delegability is not crucial; however, delegability will still add something, and will reduce "absenteeism." The class rep system is pretty unreliable. DP is not intended to replace the class rep system, but to supplement it, to create alternate communication pathways based on relationships of trust and rapport.) This completes a set of answers to the questions asked by Mr. Kok. Any reader is welcome to move these questions and answers to the beyondpolitics.org/wiki, if that has not already been done, and to edit them if it seems that there are errors or that the ideas could be better expressed. What has been written here is the opinion of the author and does not represent any official position of BeyondPolitics.org. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
