Communicative System

[Its me Mario]

Alex, Michael, Abd,

Thanks for all of those clarifications and sorry I haven't responded
sooner.

I have no background in political theory and as such I don't think there's
much point in continuing this kind of theoretical discussion. You guys seem
to have thought this through quite comprehensively and your time would
probably be better spent putting these thoughts into practice rather than
discussing them with me.

What I will say is that in Votorola you're trying to build something
fundamentally new - even if the ideas behind it are not new themselves new,
formalising them in a piece of software and unleashing this on the internet
is something that has never been done. I'd be wary of putting to much stock
in theory for a venture like this, there are a lot of unknowns which you
won't have any solid inkling about until the system is live and being used.

I would concentrate on getting a basic but usable version of the software up
and running at an early stage (but I may be biased because I want to study
this kind of system in use). I think there's a lot to be said for developing
communications systems in concert with a group of users, and it might be
easier to get people interested initially if the system's workings are very
straightforward and easily understood.

Just my 2 cents.



On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com> wrote:

> 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/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.reluk.ca/list/votorola/attachments/20101102/a2ce7cc7/attachment-0007.html>