At 01:58 PM 12/18/2007, Juho wrote: >Some quick notes on opportunities and threats that different >political structures offer: > >Direct democracy or democracy with immediate feedback (=ability to >cancel support) >+ voter opinions rule >+ politicians must remember and fulfil their promises all the time >+ unwanted political games will be cut short >+ political direction can be changed when needed / ability to react >to events >- populist and non-expert opinions rule >- only tax cuts and more benefits to people > >Indirect / representative democracy (with no continuous feedback) >+ representatives have some time to prove their point before the next >election (also tax raises etc. possible) >+ decisions will be made by the most competent citizens (based on >their own independent thinking) >- it is easy to make promises and be nice only before the elections
The problems are pretty well-known. What is not well-known -- or even known at all -- is what the following would be, if done in the kind of way we have been proposing (Asset Voting, with the electors remaining active with voting rights in an assembly if they choose to use them -- otherwise the representative they have seated effectively votes for them): >Multiple layer hierarchy >+ less voters per representative => closer contacts and feedback >+ responsibility and contact between top and bottom layers lost in >the multiple steps >- vote opinions may be lost in the multiple steps >- civil servant / politician centric thinking concentrates step by step The second point is totally speculative. An elector would not have "responsibility and contact lost" over the current system, rather these would both be increased. Even regular voters (not electors who vote openly, but those who only voted secretly or not at all) would have increased access, in my opinion and prediction. Essentially, an access path is developed, so that inquiries and advice can travel in a known manner, which can also be monitored from both sides (if it is open, as through mailing lists). The key word to keep in mind is "filtering." Filters can be seen in two ways: most obviously, they block information; but by blocking certain kinds of information, they facilitate transfer and attention to other kinds of information. My thinking on this came from delegable proxy; the proxies are bidirectional filters, preventing proxies above from being overwhelmed with input from below, and, likewise, preventing base-level clients from being overwhelmed with information from the center. The proxy is a trusted filter and agent. The proxy is responsible to the client, but also to the proxy's proxy: if a proxy passes on too much, passes on nonsense, the proxy's proxy may decline further communication; likewise if a proxy is participating in some forum of peers, if the proxy passes on too much from below, the proxy may face censure, could lose communication rights in that group. Imagine if a member of the U.S. House placed, into the Congressional record, all mail that he received.... >Low hierarchy >+ direct relationship between the voter and his/her representative >- inability to maintain contact to all the numerous direct voters Right. It is not scalable. It worked when the scale was reasonably small. >Parties (in elections and in everyday work) >+ clear political agendas >+ representatives can be connected to some known agenda >+ not so easy for representatives to continuously change opinion >depending on current winds >- individual representatives may be forced to follow party leaders >- limited number of options to choose from >- puppets (instead of individual thinkers) > >No parties >+ less hidden cabinet decisions >+ free opinions >+ also minority opinions present >+/- less group power (coordinated voting according to majority >opinion of the party) >- more populism >- candidates may tell different stories to different potential voters >- different stories in different elections There will always be "parties." In a DP system we call them "caucuses." They are combinations of members who agree on something and who may act in concert about it. But DP and Asset Voting are not dependent upon parties, for setting up a system where no votes are lost removes much of the necessity for them. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
