At 02:30 AM 3/6/2006, Jobst Heitzig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >To begin with: It might be the case that what you wrote contains the >answer to what I will ask, but the sheer amount of your postings makes >it completely impossible to read them in my 15 minutes a day I can afford...
I understand, and regret the volume. I need an editor. Any volunteers? :-) >Here's the main problem I see when using non-secret proxy systems: If X >can prove to Y that she named Y as her proxy, then people can buy votes: >Y can give X money for naming her as proxy. This would result in a >plutocracy instead of a democracy. No, that question was not answered specifically. The problem with vote-buying is not what people usually think. The problem is secrecy. In an FA, nobody would bother to buy votes: it would buy you very little. In order for vote-buying to make any sense for the buyer, one would have to buy off a high-level proxy, and then the proxy would not only have to do something contrary to the public interest and the proxy's own uninfluenced judgement, but the proxy would have to successfully explain this to his or her constituency, who *will* question it. This is one reason why the collection factor (the average number of people direct represented by a proxy) should be small. If, under those conditions, you get back a form letter with some BS explanation, if you can't telephone and direct discuss it with your proxy, I'd say it is time to change proxies. Further, those lower-level proxies with direct access to the corrupted one can think, even if the higher-level proxy seems sincere, that he or she is merely idiosycratic about that issue, so, if direct voting is allowed (this is a very good reason to allow it), they would bypass the proxy and vote directly. At a high level (this would be a high level, just below the qualifying level for full participation), proxies will be *very* involved and many of them might be attending assembly sessions. For them, direct voting would be trivial, and would carry with it all their votes. In other words, this high-level proxy, bought at great expense, ends up casting one vote (or only a relatively small number of votes). As I did write, the corrupter ends up with a mouthful of hair. By the way, we *have* a plutocracy already, and that will not change unless the economic system is changed. I'm not recommending that this be done in the near future, and I am entirely unsure that it is a good idea in the long run. The economic system will, in any case, be rather thoroughly reformed, but not by legislation and in a gentle way, by the formation of large consumer and employee FA/DP organizations. The *customers* have almost total power over the plutocrats, but cannot exercise it due to the lack of organization, and all attempts to organize consumers so far have created oligarchical structures, not democratic structures. I've been writing that FA/DP will transform society. It is not just a casual observation, it is the result of about twenty years of studying the concept (as well as quite a bit of experience in organizations, particularly nonprofits). ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
