could the public vote its own candidates into office?
Michael Allan
>
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2007, in the APSA_ITP list, David Bray wrote:
>
> > [ http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=962283 ]How
> > Information Systems Research Can Inform Current and Emerging Government
> > Institutions: Two Views
> >
> > Hope this helps!
>
> Yes thanks. And that paper gives me an idea for the executive branch
> of government. Probably nothing new... I will post it separately.
Can I bounce this off TorCamp first, before making a fool of myself
in poli-sci circles?
The idea is to take the voting system as proposed for community
law-making, and apply it to the executive branch of government.
(Community law-making was described here:
http://zelea.com/project/textbender/d/overview.xht#Law-Making
Executive election is simpler:
1. Each citizen would carry a single vote per office, which he could
use to 'back' any citizen as a candidate for that office.
He would also be free to withdraw his backing at any time,
or to transfer it to another candidate.
2. A candidate's own vote (as a citizen) would carry with it
the votes of all her backers.
3. At the start of the next term, the candidate with
the most backing would automatically enter office.
The critical rule is 2, in which electoral power would be concentrated
upward in a hierarchy of expertise. Most of us are not really
qualified to choose among candidates for all the various public
offices. But we probably know somebody *more* qualified than we are,
for each of them. ("I don't know who should be Health Minister, but
my friend is a nurse, so I'm backing her. She can decide.") Voter
competence would thus be reached within a few degrees of separation:
each higher candidate being more competent for the office; more worthy
of public trust; and also more worthy of the added electoral weight
she carries. So this electoral system could underpin a meritocracy.
Has this idea already been proposed?
Is it sound? (I don't really think it could be used to elect cabinet
ministers; only to recommend them. But it could be used to elect chief
executives, such as head of state, justices, and so forth.)
(The fun thing is to speculate... If we could code this up, and let it
loose. Just imagine if it caught on, the uproar it would cause!)
--
Michael Allan
Rohan Jayasekera
Michael Allan
> I have no idea whether it's been proposed before, ...
I just found two proposals/analyses by mathemeticians:
* Pivato. 2007. Pyramidal democracy.
* Rodriguez et al. 2007. Smartocracy: social networks
for collective decision making.
> I get excited when even the edge conditions hold up well. Suppose the
> majority of Canadians want Wayne Gretzky to run the country, but he
> doesn't want to. No problem: he'd be backing someone else. People
> would individually decide whether, if they can't have him actually run
> the country, they'd want him to decide who does.
The idea is exciting. And it's barely been explored. The implications
of it! But I'd better read those papers first...
Michael Allan
> of doing all voting by designating someone who represents you (a
> proxy), and cascading this all the way to the top. Note that each
> person needs to be able to uniquely identify who their chosen proxy
> is, which suggests a system that has all the participants enrolled in
> it. Many governments maintain a permanent voter's list, and this
> could be put online, with decent search facilities so that voters can
> locate the person they want to designate. It would also be nice to
> add discussion forums, etc. -- and you end up with a social networking
> site. (A relatively quick way of building such a system as a pilot
> project would be to write a Facebook app.)
Exactly, it's not difficult in principle, and some of the pieces are
there already. I did my homework: There's a medium (Smartocracy) that
can do vote cascading. So they claim. (I have not looked into it,
assuming it's even open.) But nowhere do I read about the implications
of actually using it. (!) So here goes. (Pardon where it repeats,
from previous posts.)
This is a game. Find a flaw in the reasoning that supports this
assertion:
A quiet revolution in democracy is unfolding.
This is a summary of the reasoning:
A. Detailed plans exist to re-found government on the direct
authority of the public, expressing its will through social
and collaborative media.
B. Each step in implementing these plans would depend
on the initiative of ordinary citizens, volunteering
their time and working together.
C. No power within a liberal democracy would oppose any step.
A. Plans
--------
All branches of government are covered: legislative, executive and
judiciary. For the legislative, one plan is to base it on community
law-making:
1. Any citizen could draft a proposal (bill) for a new law;
or the amendment or abrogation of an existing law.
2. Other citizens (drafters) could copy the bill, modify it,
and thus create their own variants (drafts) of it.
3. Each citizen would have a single vote per bill,
which he might use to 'back' any draft of the bill.
A drafter could thus aquire a 'constituency' of backers.
... and so on
http://zelea.com/project/textbender/d/overview.xht#Law-Making
For the executive and judiciary, one plan is an electoral system based
on a delegate cascade:
1. Each citizen would carry a single vote per office, which he could
use to 'back' any other citizen as a candidate for that office.
He could also withdraw his backing at any time, or transfer it
to another candidate.
2. A candidate's own vote (as a citizen) would carry with it
the votes of all her backers.
3. At the start of the next term, the candidate with the most
backing would automatically enter office.
In this way, the public would choose its own candidates, and elect
them directly to office. A social medium such as 'Smartocracy' would
be used for this purpose.
http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/HICSS.2007.484
The delegate cascade (2) would support a 'pyramidal meritocracy'.
Most of us (to explain) are not really qualified to choose among
candidates for all the various public offices. But we probably know
somebody *more* qualified than we are, for each of them. ("I don't
know who should be Health Minister, but my friend is a nurse, so I'm
backing her. She can decide.") Voter competence would thus be reached
within a few degrees of separation: each higher candidate being more
fit for that office; more worthy of public trust; and also more worthy
of the added electoral weight she carries. And so this 'pyramid'
would ensure that high public offices were held by the most competent
and trusted citizens.
B. Initiative
-------------
Each step in implementing these plans would depend on the initiative
of ordinary citizens, volunteering their time and working together.
The underlying social and collaborative networks can be built on free
and open technology. No private interest or government program would
be needed to develop them. We could depend entirely on the
public spirit of volunteer engineers, like those who built free Unix,
and much of the Web.
The political intiative can also come from the grassroots. And it
might come quickly. Here is a scenario:
1. A simple voting system based on a delegate cascade is developed.
2. People begin to use it immediately. They cast 'pretend' votes
and elevate their own 'pretend' candidates for the next election.
3. The media runs a story: "Public Electing Its Own Candidates!"
4. Quickly, the participation level rises, and approaches
that of an election.
5. The media interviews the top candidates.
... and so on
What would prevent the top candidates from running in the next
election? And who would dare to run against them?
This might only be a few years away. The technology for such a voting
system is not terribly difficult. It might be imperfect in 3 years
time, but it would not have to be perfect in order to be decisive in
an election. For some public offices, perhaps some very high ones,
the next election could be the last in which people are told, in
advance, who they can vote for.
The legislative branch is not so easy to change. It could not be done
so quickly. The technology is more difficult, and any shift of
legislative responsibility would have to be gradual and cautious, to
avoid confusion.
However, in places that did not already have a legislature, the
institution of community law-making might come more quickly. One
place that lacks a legislature (lacks accountable government, period)
is the world.
C. Opposition
-------------
No power within a liberal democracy would oppose any step in the
implementation of these plans. A liberal democracy has few means of
resisting its public. Its whole bent is to serve the public will. It
might have some institutions (supreme judiciary for example) with the
power of sustained opposition; but there is no reason to suspect, in
this case, that they would use that power.
Nor could any state (democratic or otherwise) do anything to prevent
the founding of an international world government. After all, the
authority of that government would not derive from any nation state;
it would not be a 'United Nations'. Its authority would come directly
from a worldwide polity -- from us. And we are, all of us, tired of
nations that do not get along with each other.
Michael Sims
> A quiet revolution in democracy is unfolding.
I've been trying to ascertain what relation this thread bears to Torcamp,
and failing. But I can't resist raining on your parade here. You've
failed to consider some rather important points:
a) The public in general doesn't care, at all, in the slightest, about
reforming government in order to create a highly-complex vote-transfer
system. (This is actually two facts in one; the public doesn't care about
politics period, and if they did care they would hate a highly-complex
vote-transfer system.) Please remember that your system must be simple
enough that the dumbest 5% of the population has no trouble with it.
b) Politicians will strongly oppose, to a man, any upheaval in the election
system in place, which by definition has been good to them. This has been
true in all countries at all times, and it's true now in Canada.
c) About 2/3 of Canadian households have at least one household member who
uses the internet regularly, whether from home, work, or school. Which
means 1/3 of households do not have even one member who is internet-savvy.
No voting system which excludes 1/3 of citizens can be considered
democratic.
Any of these flaws alone would doom your plan to fantasy-land.
> This is a summary of the reasoning:
>
> A. Detailed plans exist to re-found government on the direct
> authority of the public, expressing its will through social
> and collaborative media.
Detailed plans also exist for the starship Enterprise.
> B. Each step in implementing these plans would depend
> on the initiative of ordinary citizens, volunteering
> their time and working together.
Critical flaw #1, see my point a).
> C. No power within a liberal democracy would oppose any step.
False assumption #1, see my point b).
I'll tell you what, why don't you go and get one (1) elected representative
in Canada, either Federal, province, or city, to sign on to your plan.
Just ONE. When you do, you can come back and continue spamming this list
with your fantasy voting scheme for world government. Until then, please
go away. (And spend some time learning how politics actually works, if you
want to ever have a chance of changing things.)
Michael Sims
Michael Allan
>
> > A quiet revolution in democracy is unfolding.
>
> I've been trying to ascertain what relation this thread bears to Torcamp,
> and failing. But I can't resist raining on your parade here. You've
> failed to consider some rather important points:
>
> a) The public in general doesn't care, at all, in the slightest, about
> reforming government in order to create a highly-complex vote-transfer
> system. (This is actually two facts in one; the public doesn't care about
People who do vote *do* care about politics, obviously -- at least
enough to bother voting. We can continue to depend on this.
Mind you, they might vote in greater numbers, and thus demonstrate a
greater *care* about politics (according to the simple equation above)
when they learn either of 2 things:
i) They can now vote immediately, when they feel like it,
without waiting for the official election day.
ii) They can vote for whomever they have the most trust in,
whomever they feel is the most competent, without waiting
for the official candidates to be announced.
But I'm just guessing that these new rights will attract them. I have
no proof of this, yet.
> and if they did care they would hate a highly-complex
> vote-transfer system.) Please remember that your system must be simple
> enough that the dumbest 5% of the population has no trouble with it.
The added complexity is:
iii) They can now shift their vote, at any time, if they come to
have doubts about their original choice.
Most people will be able to understand this concept. For those who do
not, we would do our best to teach them, and help them.
Mathematician Marcus Pivato (in a paper just last month) has argued
that even children and the mentally infirm could be given a vote, in a
delegate cascade system (as we propose here). After all, voters need
not understand the theory of the cascade, in order to vote; but so
powerful is it, that the knowledge in their votes (however small it
may seem to you or me) is gathered into the cascade, and *improves*
the efficiency of public descision making, at the end of the cascade
(at the tip of the 'pyramidal meritocracy', to use Pivato's term).
> b) Politicians will strongly oppose, to a man, any upheaval in the election
> system in place, which by definition has been good to them. This has been
> true in all countries at all times, and it's true now in Canada.
What form will their opposition take? Street protests? (Seriously,
that might be their best hope.) Because, as long as the public feels
that this is *their* electoral system, they will not let *anybody* or
*anything* take it away from them.
> c) About 2/3 of Canadian households have at least one household member who
> uses the internet regularly, whether from home, work, or school. Which
> means 1/3 of households do not have even one member who is internet-savvy.
> No voting system which excludes 1/3 of citizens can be considered
> democratic.
Initially, the system will not be 'official'. It will function much as
a poll. (And we must be very open about this, to the public.) We will
have time, therefore, to come up with solutions:
> > Disenfranchisement of voters lacking computer/network access: Maybe
> > the community needs to come up with ideas. Since delegation is built
> > into the system, it should not be too hard to use it, at least as a
> > temporary stop-gap; e.g. sneaker-net between voter and trusted
> > delegate in the neighbourhood.
http://groups.google.com/group/torcamp/browse_frm/thread/5bd0d821599b20bb/#
Also briefly touched on here:
http://lists.hmdc.harvard.edu/lists/apsa_itp_at_lists_hmdc_harvard_edu/2007_08/msg00036.html
> Any of these flaws alone would doom your plan to fantasy-land.
>
> > This is a summary of the reasoning:
> >
> > A. Detailed plans exist to re-found government on the direct
> > authority of the public, expressing its will through social
> > and collaborative media.
>
> Detailed plans also exist for the starship Enterprise.
This is an unfair criticism of the starship Enterprise, since nobody
really intended it to fly.
> > B. Each step in implementing these plans would depend
> > on the initiative of ordinary citizens, volunteering
> > their time and working together.
>
> Critical flaw #1, see my point a).
Answered above.
> > C. No power within a liberal democracy would oppose any step.
>
> False assumption #1, see my point b).
Answered above. (But I see I am at fault here, because I should have
said *effectively* oppose.)
> I'll tell you what, why don't you go and get one (1) elected representative
> in Canada, either Federal, province, or city, to sign on to your plan.
> Just ONE. When you do, you can come back and continue spamming this list
> with your fantasy voting scheme for world government. Until then, please
> go away. (And spend some time learning how politics actually works, if you
> want to ever have a chance of changing things.)
It will not be I who changes these things, nor any elected
representative -- it will be the public. And if TorCampers choose to
help them, they will effectively be working as public servants.
And I *suspect*, Michael Sims, that you are not really as opposed to
any of this as you pretend. I suspect you are deliberately giving me
a chance to better explain myself to the group. I did a poor job of
it the first time, and did not get another chance until now.