Anyone interested in understanding what I am offering here had best ignore 
anything Abd offers here:
      He offers Free Associations, Asset voting, and Delegable Proxy.  He 
may have something of value, but I also claim value for my thoughts.
      I offer proxies as a way of populating a legislature.  While we both 
got proxies from the same source, there are enough differences in the way 
they are used that you get nothing but headaches if you mix Abd's ideas 
with mine.

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 01:07:54 -0400 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

> At 09:36 PM 3/23/2007, Dave Ketchum wrote:
> 
>>Seeing Free Associations and Trees by Proxy as different concepts:
>>      Abd's Free Associations use proxies to create Free Associations,
>>which decide for themselves what they are and do.
>>      My Trees by Proxy use proxies to elect legislatures, which then are
>>much like traditional legislatures.
>>
> 
> I'd like to point out that I write about FA/DP, not just FA. DP is, 
> of course, Delegable Proxy.


I avoid the phrase "Delegable Proxy" because the usage is just different 
enough that they had best be kept apart.

> 
> Free Associations are one kind of organization that could use 
> Delegable Proxy, and there isn't any need to postpone it, because FAs 
> are relatively immune to corruption and if DP fails, it won't hurt 
> much of anything.
> 
> Legislatures are, of course, another matter.
> 
> The issue here is not the difference between FAs and Trees by Proxy, 
> because one is an organization and the second is an organizational 
> technique. The comparison would be between Trees by Proxy and Delegable Proxy.
> 
>  From what was written before, these would be the differences, if any:
> 
> Trees by Proxy seems to have envisioned a geographical structure with 
> defined levels. A tree with orderly branches. Delegable Proxy does 
> not fix the structure at any level, it is self-assembled and is a 
> fractal, more chaotic than what seems to be in mind with Trees by Proxy.
> 

That paragraph bothers less then most of his.  While a legislature is 
usually geographical, I do not demand that of such.

> 
>>I bring the thread name back to my topic.
>>
>>Very little restriction on who can give or hold a proxy.
>>
> 
> Likewise with our understanding of Delegable Proxy.
> 
> 
>>Takes time for a proxy to become effective, or to lose effectiveness when
>>giver ends it.
>>
> 
> We understand proxies as they are used in common law; they are 
> revocable at any time by the client. Obviously, there can be latency, 
> but the same is true with attorneys-in-fact. If I'm at the bank 
> executing a document on your behalf, you might revoke the proxy, but 
> it will still be binding until involved parties have notice of the revocation.


Here we have Abd talking without understanding the topic.  I write of time 
BECAUSE it is not appropriate for changes to take effect before a 
deliberate delay after specifying such.

> 
> But a legislative system, I'd assume, would have a process whereby 
> you could revoke your proxy, effectively immediately. The revocation 
> might not affect a vote in the process of being expanded.
> 
> Note that generally proxies are exercising rights that the client, if 
> present, could exercise directly. We have been assuming Direct 
> Democracy as far as voting is concerned, so you could *immediately* 
> cancel your proxy, effectively, by voting on any pending issue.
> 

Another difference - my proxies have a monopoly on performing their tasks.

> 
>>Holders of effective proxies:
>>      Holding too few does not make one a legislator.  There is no rigid
>>size for a legislature, but they must not grow too large.  Those holding
>>too few, or retiring from being legislators, can combine forces to create
>>a holder with reasonable power.
>>
> 
> Yes, this is how we have understood it. By "legislator," we would 
> read, "Someone with floor rights in the legislature." Floor rights 
> means the right to rise to speak, and to enter motions. I have found 
> it interesting to distinguish this from *voting* rights, which might 
> be exercisable directly, wherever the voter has a means to directly 
> cast a vote. So you visit the U.S. Proxy Senate, and you happen to 
> have an opinion about the motion on the floor, which comes to vote. 
> You walk to a terminal provided for that purpose, and you identify 
> yourself and vote. As it happens, you are a direct proxy of a few 
> people in your home town, so you move a few votes, which are not 
> recorded in the totals for your Senator. But, of course, the overall 
> Senate results would be reported in the hundreds of millions of votes....
> 

Another lack of thinking to ignore.

> 
>>      Holding too many is discouraged by limiting the number that can be
>>counted as giving a legislator power.
>>

And ignore what follows.

> 
> I've ultimately come to the conclusion that it is unnecessary to 
> limit the number of proxies which can be held by any individual; but 
> rules can and should ensure that the actions of a superproxy enjoy 
> continued support. It may be enough that no decision is final until 
> preliminary results have been announced, and anyone who has not voted 
> may proceed to vote. There might be a limitation on the number of 
> proxies would could be pulled in during the extended voting period 
> (for a superproxy could abuse the rule by not voting until the end of 
> the extended period....).
> 
> Note that in standard meeting process, the chair acts very much like 
> a superproxy. The chair can pretty much do anything and it can be 
> recorded as the action of the organization as long as it is done at a 
> meeting properly called and with a quorum, *provided nobody objects.* 
> The chair has no power except as the body continues to allow him or 
> her to exercise it.
> 
> 
>>      Legislators have power and responsibilities of those in similar such
>>boards.  They have voting power based on effective proxies held.  Their
>>pay is at least partly based on voting power.
>>
> 
> It would seem to be fair to pay representatives according to how many 
> they represent....
> 
> 
>>The size of a "village" in which voters give proxies to elders is limited
>>to limit expectable number of proxies for an elder to hold.
>>

Some more to ignore.

> 
> I see utterly no reason for this. These are "direct proxies." They 
> are not the bulk of the proxies which will be exercised at a high 
> level, which would be mostly indirect proxies, passed up through one 
> or more levels.
> 
> Again, I've avoided much of this consideration because of the FA 
> context. Absolutely, DP has potential governmental applications, but 
> those applications are much tougher, and given that we don't really 
> know much about how DP will work in practice, I'd prefer to see some 
> work with it, in the FA and other nongovernmental applications, 
> before trying to develop significantly more organizational detail. 
> I'd rather not build castles in the sky, getting down to how wide the 
> gates are and what will lubricate the hinges.
> 
> But, hey, whatever pulls your chain!
> 
> On the other hand, Asset Voting I'd go for immediately. And it really is DP. 

-- 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.


----
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Reply via email to