At 02:51 AM 3/26/2007, Dave Ketchum wrote: if we imagine Trees by Proxy as proposed by Ketchum, and then we add to it the following provisions:
>>(1) Voters may vote directly at any assembly by showing up and >>voting, technical constraints permitting. This presence does not, >>in itself, give them other participation rights. > >Two thoughts: > This is not normal for legislatures and not needed for what I > propose, so talking of it would be a distraction. Proxy voting is not normal for legislatures. It isn't normal in politics at all. However, direct voting is normal where property rights are involved, and proxy voting is a power that is, by common law, intrinsic to such rights. To me, the question is why, then, to *disallow* direct voting. Direct voting makes little sense if we think of each legislator has having one vote. But if we think of each legislator has having one vote for each constituent, and then a constituent directly votes one vote, taking this away from the effective total of the legislator, it *does* make sense. The legislator is then seen, properly, as an ordinary proxy for the citizen. And this is fully democratic. If the assembly is Town Meeting, it is all clear. The citizen has the right to attend Town Meeting and vote. Or the citizen can, we propose -- ultimately, not in the near-term -- allow a proxy to vote for him or her. If we have a large-scale assembly where full participation is not practical for all who might attend, then we may restrict deliberative rights, but this does not provide any reason whatever to restrict voting rights. And Ketchum has provided us with none, beyond what he just stated: it is not the status quo. But that argument applies against the whole proposal, not just this part! > For some legislature to do this would be to make up their own luck. What would be the harm? First of all, it is highly unlikely that direct votes of single voters would make up more than a small percentage of actual votes cast. However, should it happen that such votes *did* turn an outcome, we could easily see that the legislature failed to convince the electorate of the appropriateness of its decisions. If it's a proxy legislature, as Ketchum is proposing -- why he dislikes Asset Voting is beyond me, because it creates a traditional peer legislature with little fuss -- the proxies have a prime opportunity to convince their constituencies, having been chosen as trusted by them. If they nevertheless fail, I'd suggest that it would be for good reason. Something stinks. >>(2) Proxy assignments can be revoked at any time by notice to the >>affected bodies by the principal. > > >Since I propose EXACTLY this, sounds like carelessness. > >Actually, he wants them to take effect instantly - something I see >as too destructive. He just contradicted himself. He either proposed that exactly, and he *emphasized* the word "exactly," or he proposes something else. The fact is that he proposes something else, and what he proposes is latency with no established reason, other than being "destructive" if it is not there. What is destroyed is unstated. Again, I could speculate, and I've already answered previously based on my speculation. But he has not been explicit. The only thing I can see that is actually destroyed is the unjust power of a proxy who no longer enjoys the consent of his client. What else? >>These changes would bring the proxies into conformance with the >>basic concept I've described, and it is not clear to me that they >>would alter the basic function of Trees by Proxy, except to make it >>more democratic and free. He did not contradict this. >In what follows he seems to want a legislature to have unlimited >freedom in setting up its own rules. Yes. *That is standard common law.* It is not totally "unlimited," because it may be constrained by certain legal principles involving equal protection under the law and the like, but, in practice, there are no a priori restraints. >While a legislature should have some rule making ability, I believe >experience has shown that much of the rules BETTER be standardized. The rules *are* standardized, but they are subject to change by the legislature. This isn't too difficult to understand, and it is beyond me why Ketchum seems to argue with it. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
