--- On Thu, 29/1/09, Michael Allan m...@zelea.com 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
--- On Sat, 31/1/09, Michael Allan m...@zelea.com 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
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 understood from
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, 26/1/09, Michael Allan m...@zelea.com 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
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
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:
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
about the
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 using
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 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
--- On Fri, 23/1/09, Michael Allan m...@zelea.com 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
--- On Fri, 23/1/09, Michael Allan m...@zelea.com 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
--- On Fri, 23/1/09, Kristofer Munsterhjelm km-el...@broadpark.no 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
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 vote is public or secret.
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:
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 state
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
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 think) is that
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 or
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:
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 by
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
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' actions
--- On Mon, 19/1/09, Michael Allan m...@zelea.com 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
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
--- On Sun, 18/1/09, Michael Allan m...@zelea.com 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
--- On Sat, 17/1/09, Michael Allan m...@zelea.com 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
Juho Laatu wrote:
--- On Mon, 12/1/09, Michael Allan m...@zelea.com 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
--- On Tue, 13/1/09, Kristofer Munsterhjelm km-el...@broadpark.no 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
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
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 but
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 to
33 matches
Mail list logo
