It's a chaotic system, in that there is no precise, neat, structure
set up in advance. However, the human nervous system is organized
pretty much like this, from the ground up.
How about joining Metaparty?
(And you can be sure that most of us will support other efforts that
follow similar principles. One thing about Free Associations: they
could fracture easily, but they tend not to, because they don't need
to, unless the FA principles have been corrupted, and they can merge,
even more easily, because all it takes is for communication to start up.)
This revolution *will* happen, almost certainly, in my opinion,
unless the conditions disappear (i.e., most essentially, freedom of
association). It is too simple an idea. I think that once it is tried
on a significant scale, that will be all she wrote. The real question
is how long it will take. It *could* be quite rapid. And, then again.....
At this point, however, support for the idea is too diffuse. This is
changing. DP was independently invented in about four different
places around the world, over the last decade (I haven't seen
anything older than that -- I was working on it before then, but
didn't write it down....)
Nanson (that Australian fellow who created Nansons method, which is the only Condorcet method to have ever been implemented in a real election, something worthy of note since it was one of the simpler ways to do Condorcet) created a method over 100 years ago that he saw as a solution to STV's problem... as many candidates from each district are elected as there are candidates, and they have as many votes in parliament as they had votes from constituents. The person who reviewed this immediately criticized the idea, by saying that it would create a very large legislature. It would be easy to compensate for it's flaws, however, by simply limiting the amount of representatives that can be admitted to the house, and allowing candidates unelected to transfer their votes to other candidates. The real problem I see is in the legislative rules, as it would no longer be a peer assembly. Also, people would view it as unstable, a notion which I find a preposterous propaganda scam against all PR systems. Hey, one party systems were also very "stable".
I also re-invented an exactly simialar scheme a few years ago. The notion is obvious, why should someone have the same amount of votes in a legislauture as someone whom more people support?
But elections are just drilled into the head of people. We have to be realistic about things.
---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
