Communicative System

[Michael Allan]

Alex, Richard/Mario, Abd,

Alex Rollin wrote:
> You can use the system to elect a candidate, a representative, but
> it's not the only use or the primary use.  Using the system to craft
> policy is closer to design.  Constructing communicative assent, as
> opinion, is the primary function, at least as I understand it and I
> hope others correct me.

I think it's a good summary.  A candidate can have many aspects aside
from the personal one (which it always has).  Usually a candidate will
have a textual aspect and often that's what people will be voting for:
for example, a candidate bill for a legislature.

On the other hand, just as often they'll be voting more for the person
who's editing the text, than the text itself.  "I'm voting for this
guy because I can talk to him," for example, "and he's willing to
patch my diffs."

These distictions aren't well documented yet, but they follow from the
generality of the design.  You can vote for the best flower garden on
the street, for example, by voting for the gardener.  (Maybe
"candidate" is the best term in theory, because "position" implies
politics and not all applications are political.)

Its me Mario wrote:
> To summarise, its my intuition that one of the strengths of a voting
> system like this its capacity to separate the making of "policy"
> decisions from the implementation of these decisions. ...

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> That is basically a good idea, in a way. The key is to set up
> systems that advise, that gather and process information in such a
> way as to make the advice maximally trustworthy. The advice flows in
> two directions: it advises decision-makers (people who have been
> assigned authority by whatever process) and it advises the people
> who choose the decision-makers.

The theoretical terms are maybe "norm" and "fact".  I agree that the
crucial thing is to separate them, then bring them into proper
relations with each other.  Norms are what *ought* to be, e.g. the
stuff you think about when making policy (as Richard says).  Facts are
what *is*, or what you find in "implementation", e.g. in
administrative policy that is actually enforced.

Norms are the key, as Abd says.  There's a deficit of them in modern
society.  Too many rules, enforcements and other uses of power are
lacking in legitimacy, because we're not quite certain that they *are*
what they *ought* to be.

This separation isn't documented at all.  I guess it belongs in
section II, under "Reason and the rationalization of communicative
institutions": http://zelea.com/project/autonomy/content.xht (I'm
cross-linking from my notes there to this list archive, so our
discussions eventually get into the docs.)

> Okay, a solution: Asset Voting, used to create a proportional 
> representation assembly. The Asset election is held periodically, 
> perhaps once a year.

Abd and I have already discussed Asset Voting in the election methods
list, so I won't repeat myself.  Note that Abd leads the steering
committee for the Center for Election Science.  He's also one of the
earliest proponents (aside from Carroll) of transitive delegation in
voting methods - the same technique we use in Votorola.

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 647-436-4521
http://zelea.com/