Issue-Boundary

[Thomas von der Elbe]

This is our former conversation:
We were talking about votes with different degrees of abstraction.
("I want climate change to stop globally." is very abstract vs. "I
want greener green roofs in Toronto" is very concrete.)

Thomas wrote:

It took me long to find the point. But finally here it is:
The normal delegation-trees you show in the theory-description of
Votorola (e.g. Figure 17.  Bridging consensus) is actually not really
about different levels of abstraction. It is actually more or less the
same level.
When I looked at it, I always had in my mind the false presumption,
that the outer voters would vote more abstract and the inner ones more
concrete.

And this now has to do with the "multiple votes per issue".
The delegation I had in mind would more be like this:

I give my vote to A because she says, she will make the neighborhood
more friendly for young families.
A gives our votes to B, because he says he will make the park nicer
and to C, because he wants to plant more trees in the streets.
B gives his votes to D, cause she wants to build a playground in the
park and to E, cause he wants to build a little lake there.
D gives her votes to F, cause she wants to build a sandbox in the
playground and to G, cause wants to build monkey bars there.
F gives her votes to H, cause he wants the sandbox red.

>>From abstract to concret.
And this delegation tree stands vertical on the tree in Figure 17. So
its more a like three-dimensional cloud of voters.
Only the deepest level is then about issues, the way you use the term,
right?

I think this sort of delegation is really important, because it can
bridge the two extremes: voting on every single issue I am interested
in vs. voting for 1 huge political party out of 2 (USA) or 5
(Germany).
Can this be realized through Votorola?