Wow! Mr. Allan, you have done some excellent work. Yes, we've been
working on this, and more -- and less.
You can see a little at http:beyondpolitics.org/wiki but most of that
is old, the site needs work, and there is a lot of ferment and
discussion in various places going on. We call it delegable proxy.
It's also been called
liquid democracy
delegated voting
candidate proxy
delegated democracy
and then
Asset Voting for a form that is a hybrid, and very old in terms of
when first proposed, 1884, but which could phase into a much more pure
There were also proposals a hundred years ago or so to implement a
system where members of a city council would exercise votes according
to the votes they received in the election.
But my own focus has been on nongovernmental solutions, because I
believe that the fundamental problem of democracy is not the
structures we use for control, as such, but the structures we use for
collective judgement, and judgement is not the executive power, it is
the ... judicial power! And the judicial power seeks consensus,
generally, and exceptions often represent a breakdown of the system.
If we can solve the problem of how to negotiate informed consensus on
a large scale, efficiently, we can deal with governmental problems
with relative ease. Even under dictatorships, if the necessary
communication can take place -- and that might be more possible than
we think, particularly if the structure is wise enough to avoid
confrontation, and I expect it would be -- the whole actual control
structure could shift toward true social consensus, without violence
and disruption.
But in democracies, there really is not anything stopping us, except
inertia. In specific organizations, attempts to introduce FA/DP
principles will almost certainly meet with opposition, to some
degree, but apathy is a far more persistent enemy. And it's not
really an enemy, merely a mechanism by which society filters out bad
ideas. Give it time!
And, please, join with us. You are very, very welcome. Do remember,
I've been thinking about this stuff for well over twenty years, and I
can have a lot to say, sometimes.....
No more new text below.
At 08:29 PM 7/20/2008, Michael Allan wrote:
Hello to the list,
I'm a software engineer, currently developing an online electoral
system. I was in another discussion (link at bottom) and a subscriber
recommended this list to me. I have a few questions, if anyone is
able to help.
A key component of the electoral system (to explain) is what I call a
"delegate cascade" voting mechanism. It is intended for use in
continuous elections (open to recasting). The overall aim is to
support consensus building. In this mechanism:
...a 'delegate' is a participant who both receives votes, like a
candidate, and casts a vote of her own, like a voter. But when a
delegate casts her vote, it carries with it those received. And so
on... Passing from delegate to delegate, the votes flow together and
gather in volume - they cascade - like raindrops down the branches
of a tree. New voters are not restricted in their choices, but may
vote for anyone, their unsolicited votes serving to nominate new
candidates and to recruit new participants into the election.
http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/outline.xht
I can only cite 3 references for the mechanism (Pivato, Rodriguez et
al., and myself) all from 2007. Does anyone know of an earlier
source? Is anyone else working with this mechanism? Have there been
discussions along similar lines?
Please bring me up to date,
--
Michael Allan
Toronto, 647-436-4521
http://zelea.com/
P.S. The other discussion thread (a broader topic) is:
Read any useful research lately, unanswered research questions?
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/6QthnRysw5lJmRGqnPAy5y
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
