Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > "Alienated" should be considered a relative term. Compared to what?
The standard for an *alienable* medium is money. Spend it, and it's gone forever. A vote is like that. Cast a vote, and it's gone. Not quite forever, but for a long time. (Caveat elector.) The standard for an *inalienable* medium is human thought, or perhaps free speech. I can hold an opinion to myself, and I can also express it. Either way it still belongs to me. If new information comes to light, I can always change my opinion, and even "take back" what I said. Compared to that, voting falls short. I cannot take my vote back and I cannot change it, not unless the voting is continuous. (The distinction is important in social theory. Alienable media are associated with intrumental/strategic action, and non-alienable with communicative action. Not sure if there's anything in that...) >> But if the votes were open to recasting in real time... > > It's Delegable Proxy. That is the principal difference between Delegable > Proxy -- which is continuously reassignable -- and Asset Voting. ... Can you point me to the original description of DP? I'm looking for a source I can cite. > ... people understanding that if they > give their votes to a massively popular politician, they get far less than > they do if they give it to someone they can sit down and talk with on > occasion. In the latter case, they gain a communications channel, in the > former, they simply support an image they have been presented. Do you have a citeable source for that, too? >> [1]. Lewis Carroll. 1884. The Principles of Parliamentary >> Representation. Harrison and Sons. London. > > Carroll was the first I know of to propose votes transferable by the first > preference candidate... And if I understand, that entails *recursive* transfer? I'll need a source for that, too. I'd better read Carroll... > I haven't been able to find the original pamphlet yet, it's expensive to > buy the collection it is in. Eventually, I'll get it. My library has originals. If I can make a copy, I'll send it to you. > I don't know that he realized the deeper implications, that this tweak to > STV could become the whole show, and lead to quasi-direct democracy. Once > there are electors holding votes, and those votes are cast publicly, the > problem of scale that afflicts direct democracy and is generally considered > insoluble, is solved -- or reduced by an order or by orders of magnitude. None of this has been explored, I don't think. -- Michael Allan Toronto, 647-436-4521 http://zelea.com/ ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
