At 07:42 AM 7/26/2007, Michael Ossipoff wrote: >But, when I and others have proposed non-traditional methods, methods using >input other than voters' ballots, we've encountered strong opposition from >people. I've even gotten consistent rejection for the candidate withdrawal >option, on the grounds that it supposedly gives candidates power to overrule >voters.
Yes. It is a fundamentally myopic argument. Here we are, giving enormous power to the victor of an election, yet unwilling to give a *lesser* power, the power to contribute to the choice -- they don't make it alone, unless the public has clearly given them permission to do so -- to the same people whom they presumably would trust in the office itself. An elector holding Asset votes has some power, delegated by the voters, but does not hold the nuclear football. The winner of the election for President does. The thinking that is leading to rejection of the idea is precisely the thinking that keeps the people that think that way powerless. >So, as good as non-traditional methods could be, I don't propose them for >public elections anymore, because of the rejection that they've elicited in >the past. There is, I believe, a way around this. First of all, proxy voting is *not* non-traditional. It is simply not traditional in politics. It is ubiquitous in business, where there can be more power involved, and risk, than that involved with a small government. It is a common-law right whenever property is involved. Rich people *demand* the right to be represented by proxy, because they understand the power that it gives them. It does not decrease their power, it increases it. But it is, indeed, very difficult for many to see this, so entrenched are our ways of thinking about politics. The way around it is to deploy delegable proxy and similar systems in nongovernmental organizations. These organizations can be extremely small to start. However, if the theory is correct, they will grow and function more efficiently than otherwise. Now, this doesn't necessarily make it easy. It took me several years to come to the point where there was *one* other person who understood what I've been working on. Others have come to congruence with me on this or that point, but most of what I think about this is still obscure to the vast majority. Increasingly, there are others who are beginning to get the point. It's not just delegable proxy. That has become quite a widespread idea over the last few years. It is how to get from here to there, how to create, essentially, intelligent organizational systems without running into all the old and commonplace hazards. Most people have never thought about this stuff, and when they think of organizing, they think of either relatively old ways, or certain appealing and untested ways -- and they are not aware of how these ways go astray, even when they seem really good to start. Consensus procedure, for example, is exhilarating. At first. And then the reality of tedious meeting after tedious meeting sets in. People drift away.... There is an answer to this. If you want consensus, go for delegable proxy! But consensus organizations I've seen have typically rejected proxy voting. I've discussed it with them and have read bylaws about it. They assume that proxy voting is essentially absentee voting. It isn't. That's not a proxy, that is somebody carrying in a vote that someone else cast. Sure, in corporate proxies, proxies can be told how to vote, but only if the proxy agrees to that. What we are suggesting are systems where the proxy votes himself or herself, and any held proxies are automatically considered to be added to that. So the proxy is really an "elected" representative, who is carrying the client's vote unless the client steps in and votes directly. So you can have representation and reserve ultimate power *at the same time.* (If the rules allow a certain time after a decision for a member to learn how the proxy voted, and then vote directly if the member cares to do so, then we have direct/representative democracy, and it is really direct, in fact, because power is retained by the client. This has been considered impossible by most political theorists, but, for reasons that escape me, they have completely overlooked proxy voting as a technique of democracy, which it clearly is and has been for a long time.) So I see how to get from here to there. But I can't do it by myself. It takes people who have come to understand the importance, taking steps to create the organizations, or to influence existing organizations to adopt the techniques. It's actually terminally simple. Proxy expansions don't have to be automated, it can be done, even, without computers. Under Robert's Rules, a vote doesn't even have to be actually *counted* unless a count is requested, so the same can be done with vote expansions by proxies. Generally, I would expect direct votes to come up with the same results as votes with proxy expansions, but it is the exceptions that can be crucially important. Proxy voting keeps fanatics and people of extreme views from running away with organizations, which they often do, because they are more highly motivated to participate.... ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
