--- On Sat, 31/1/09, Michael Allan wrote:
> Juho Laatu wrote:
>
> > (I hope the role of public image
> > doesn't get so strong that people
> > would start thinking that their
> > whitened teeth and wide smile are
> > what they are, more than their
> > internal thoughts. :-)
>
> All of us shaki
Juho Laatu wrote:
> (I hope the role of public image
> doesn't get so strong that people
> would start thinking that their
> whitened teeth and wide smile are
> what they are, more than their
> internal thoughts. :-)
All of us shaking hands and kissing babies. :)
--
Michael Allan
Toronto, 647
--- On Thu, 29/1/09, Michael Allan wrote:
> Juho Laatu wrote:
> > But I think people [a] also try to keep
> > the internals of their head in good
> > order. They don't voluntarily become
> > irrational inside. Many [b] believe that
> > they are almost always right and
> > consistent, and want to
Juho Laatu wrote:
> But I think people [a] also try to keep
> the internals of their head in good
> order. They don't voluntarily become
> irrational inside. Many [b] believe that
> they are almost always right and
> consistent, and want to maintain
> this belief.
Agreed, but it can't be understoo
Dave Ketchum wrote:
>> Yes and no. What we're discussing is described in the original post,
>> at the top of the thread. The terms are defined there. Is anything
>> unclear there?
> When? Anyway:
Sorry? When was it posted? Jan 6:
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-elect
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:25:57 -0500 Michael Allan wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
Real topic here is whether you MEAN secret when you use the word...
Scout's honour - when I say 'secret', I mean secret. The vote is
anonymous. The voter's identity is undisclosed. All that good stuff,
just like a
--- On Mon, 26/1/09, Michael Allan wrote:
> Two
> specialized voting systems that intercommunicate (state and
> public)
> can give better results than one system, on its own.
There are both positive and negative factors.
> > The public vote is maybe more
> ""sincere""
> > in the sense that that
Dave Ketchum wrote:
> Real topic here is whether you MEAN secret when you use the word...
Scout's honour - when I say 'secret', I mean secret. The vote is
anonymous. The voter's identity is undisclosed. All that good stuff,
just like a traditional secret ballot. 8^)
> From Wikipedia, the free
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:30:41 -0500 Michael Allan wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sphere
Thanks for this. I did a search on "vot" and am convinced voting is
not one of their topics - and suspect you stretched to tie it in.
I had to learn new things, and got
Dave Ketchum wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sphere
> Thanks for this. I did a search on "vot" and am convinced voting is
> not one of their topics - and suspect you stretched to tie it in.
I had to learn new things, and got stretched that way. I learned
about this concept of the
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 17:59:56 -0500 Michael Allan wrote:
By a voting system "of the public sphere", I mean...
Dave Ketchum wrote:
I do not see voters getting a choice. Whoever has power or
authority sets up the system. Voters, at most, can choose whether
to participate and/or complain.
>> By a voting system "of the public sphere", I mean...
Dave Ketchum wrote:
> I do not see voters getting a choice. Whoever has power or
> authority sets up the system. Voters, at most, can choose whether
> to participate and/or complain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sphere
We're usi
Juho Laatu wrote:
> I was thinking about public formal
> elections (e.g. parliamentary). They
> nowadays generally use secret votes.
> Doing that same at the very bottom
> level of a proxy system would not be
> too difficult.
Sorry, I missed where you said "current systems". So you're talking
ab
> > Hopefully the negative parts are corrected in the synergy with the
> > government's voting systems (?).
Juho Laatu wrote:
> You indicated that you would use this
> method so that it would not be tied to
> the formal decision making process.
> That reduces the continuous voting
> related prob
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:19:13 -0500 Michael Allan wrote:
Juho Laatu wrote:
I see three alternative approaches (for each individual voter)
here.
1) The vote is forced secret. The voter can tell how she voted
(=freedom of speech). But she can not prove to the coercer or
buyer how she voted.
2)
Juho Laatu wrote:
>>> I see three alternative approaches (for each individual voter)
>>> here.
>>>
>>> 1) The vote is forced secret. The voter can tell how she voted
>>> (=freedom of speech). But she can not prove to the coercer or
>>> buyer how she voted.
>>>
>>> 2) The voter can choose if her vo
--- On Fri, 23/1/09, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> Juho Laatu wrote:
> >> d) voting on laws, too
> >
> > I read this as allowing individual
> > voters to vote directly too, without
> > any proxies between them and the
> > decisions (on laws and on anything).
> >
> > Quite OK but I have some
--- On Fri, 23/1/09, Michael Allan wrote:
> > > with these counter-features:
> > >
> > > a) continuous results, with shifting votes
> >
> > Maybe mostly positive, but also
> > something negative.
>
> Hopefully the negative parts are corrected in the synergy
> with the
> government's voting s
--- On Fri, 23/1/09, Michael Allan wrote:
> > I think current systems rely on
> > private voting and public discussion
> > (although different than the proxy
> > based discussion). It may be possible
> > to enrich this with better mutual
> > discussion / delegable voting rights
> > without sacrif
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:22:13 -0500 Michael Allan wrote:
> Juho Laatu wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, it is good to facilitate mutual
>>discussion better. My aim with this
>>discussion is to study if one can
>>combine that with the good old
>>privacy / secret vote principles.
>
>
> The most significant combo (I
Juho Laatu wrote:
d) voting on laws, too
I read this as allowing individual
voters to vote directly too, without
any proxies between them and the
decisions (on laws and on anything).
Quite OK but I have some concerns
on what will happen in the tax
raise questions. It is possible that
the soc
> > Oddly, the preceding design need not be altered. It remains
> > essential. All we need is to add a separate, primary voting
> > system, ...
Juho Laatu wrote:
> I didn't yet quite understand what
> parts of the old system are kept and
> what will be replaced with the new
> system.
All is ke
Juho Laatu wrote:
> Yes, it is good to facilitate mutual
> discussion better. My aim with this
> discussion is to study if one can
> combine that with the good old
> privacy / secret vote principles.
The most significant combo (I think) is that of the existing general
electoral systems of the sta
--- On Wed, 21/1/09, Juho Laatu wrote:
> > c) open ballot
>
> What was the reason why you consider
> open vote to be a requirement? (or a
> "counter-feature")
I need to clarify my own question.
In the top layers open votes are the
default way of doing things. So the
question is why should al
--- On Wed, 21/1/09, Michael Allan wrote:
> Juho Laatu wrote:
>
> > I don't see any big conflict. They are
> > free to speak even if the society does
> > not provide them with tools to prove
> > to others how they voted. (And they
> > can still tell others how they voted.)
>
> The problem was
--- On Wed, 21/1/09, Michael Allan wrote:
> Juho Laatu wrote:
>
> > I see two valid ways to form opinions.
> > - opinion formation based on mass media
> > - opinion formation based on mutual discussion
> >
> > Individuals may use one or both
> > approaches when forming their private
> > opinion
Juho Laatu wrote:
> I don't see any big conflict. They are
> free to speak even if the society does
> not provide them with tools to prove
> to others how they voted. (And they
> can still tell others how they voted.)
The problem was to design a democracy in which people:
* are free to engage
Juho Laatu wrote:
> I see two valid ways to form opinions.
> - opinion formation based on mass media
> - opinion formation based on mutual discussion
>
> Individuals may use one or both
> approaches when forming their private
> opinion, and also when forming their
> public opinion (public ballot
--- On Mon, 19/1/09, Michael Allan wrote:
> Juho Laatu wrote:
>
> > > If private and public opinions differ, then which
> is the
> > > manipulated one?
> >
> > If they deviate it is hard to imagine
> > that the private opinion would not be
> > the sincere one.
>
> That's because you are thinki
Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> Could not these domains work together? To my knowledge, that's what happens
> now. People discuss politics and find out what they're going to vote. Any
> sort of improvement on the availability of discussion, as well as of
> information of representatives' action
Michael Allan wrote:
Juho Laatu wrote:
If private and public opinions differ, then which is the
manipulated one?
If they deviate it is hard to imagine
that the private opinion would not be
the sincere one.
That's because you are thinking of individual opinion. Consider:
* private opinion
Juho Laatu wrote:
> > If private and public opinions differ, then which is the
> > manipulated one?
>
> If they deviate it is hard to imagine
> that the private opinion would not be
> the sincere one.
That's because you are thinking of individual opinion. Consider:
* private opinion informed
--- On Sun, 18/1/09, Michael Allan wrote:
> > I believe the practice/principle of having
> > secret votes also often implies interest
> > in allowing people to vote as they
> > privately think. Difference between public
> > and private opinions is thus often seen to
> > mean some sort of unwanted
Michael Allan wrote:
Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
The general problem is that if there's a way of finding out what a certain
person voted, or whether a certain person voted in a particular way, one
can apply pressure to get that person to vote a desired way (to the one
applying the pressure)
Juho Laatu wrote:
> What would be a typical case where you
> recommend public votes to be used?
Where the voting system is intended to be in the public sphere, and to
serve as the voice of the public - but in that case, there's no
alternative. Public opinion can only be expressed in and through
--- On Sat, 17/1/09, Michael Allan wrote:
> Juho Laatu wrote:
>
> > 1) Most countries of the world have
> > decided to base their democratic
> > processes on secret votes. It would
> > be difficult to change their current
> > principles.
>
> It's true that most of them decided to use *private*
Juho Laatu wrote:
> 1) Most countries of the world have
> decided to base their democratic
> processes on secret votes. It would
> be difficult to change their current
> principles.
It's true that most of them decided to use *private* voting in the
state's electoral systems. On the other hand,
voters' own independent
decisions. There may be intentional or
imagined pressure at homes, work and
many types of communities (village,
friends, religious, professional).
Juho
--- On Fri, 16/1/09, Michael Allan wrote:
> From: Michael Allan
> Subject: Re: [EM] The structuring of po
Replying to Kristofer Munsterhjelm and Juho Laatu,
Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> Ultimately, what we want is for the "representatives" to be
> effectively aligned with the wishes of the people, while not being
> disproportionally more aligned with the wishes of those who have
> more power. How
Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> The general problem is that if there's a way of finding out what a certain
> person voted, or whether a certain person voted in a particular way, one
> can apply pressure to get that person to vote a desired way (to the one
> applying the pressure). That can be s
--- On Tue, 13/1/09, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> Any sort of voter-reconfigurable proxy democracy has the
> kind of feedback that enables coercion or vote-buying. In
> order to verify that a certain voter "votes" a
> certain way, the candidate or party in question can tell the
> voter to conn
Juho Laatu wrote:
--- On Mon, 12/1/09, Michael Allan wrote:
Juho Laatu wrote:
... The topmost thoughts in my mind when thinking
about this
approach is that 1) the principles are good and 2)
making the votes
public limits the usability of the method.
Traditionally secret
votes have been a
--- On Mon, 12/1/09, Michael Allan wrote:
> Juho Laatu wrote:
> > ... The topmost thoughts in my mind when thinking
> about this
> > approach is that 1) the principles are good and 2)
> making the votes
> > public limits the usability of the method.
> Traditionally secret
> > votes have been a bu
Juho Laatu wrote:
> ... The topmost thoughts in my mind when thinking about this
> approach is that 1) the principles are good and 2) making the votes
> public limits the usability of the method. Traditionally secret
> votes have been a building block of democracies. Public votes work
> somewhere
Here's one comment. The topmost thoughts in
my mind when thinking about this approach
is that 1) the principles are good and 2)
making the votes public limits the usability
of the method. Traditionally secret votes
have been a building block of democracies.
Public votes work somewhere but not
every
I completed a theory outline, and here I'm posting it for the record.
Critique is also welcome. Please point out flaws or ommissions.
The voting mechanism (delegate cascade) is essentially identical to
Abd's "delegable proxy". I describe the nuts and bolts of it. I also
describe its interface t
46 matches
Mail list logo
