Communicative System

[Alex Rollin]

Perhaps we can chat on skype;  I hear some misconceptions in your  
analysis similar to my own when I showed up a few months ago.

Candidates have positions.  Vote are for positions, not candidates.

The system was originally conceived by Mike as an opinion polling  
system, generally decoupled from action.

I am intersted in coupling votes, or vote tally thresholds, to action,  
so I continue to work on that ubder the guise of "vote processing"  
which you heard of in the other thread.

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.

Alex



On Oct 28, 2010, at 5:04 PM, Its me Mario  
<puffpastryhangman at gmail.com> wrote:

> I've scanned this document before, given it a bit more attention now  
> but I haven't had the time yet to really analyse it thoroughly.
>
> My own ideas were about a more direct form of democracy, similar to  
> this theory but where the stopping point for votes was a particular  
> outcome rather than an individual who would be entrusted to bring  
> about this outcome. The theory is well written and quite convincing,  
> this form of representative democracy through delegate cascades  
> would certainly be interesting to observe in practice. I think a  
> critical component is the ability for voters/delegates to change  
> their votes at any point in time (this is how the system is kept  
> honest).
>
> I can see this posing a problem for integrating the system with  
> existing forms of representative democracy where individuals are  
> elected for a fixed term. If the most popular candidate within this  
> voting system was to win in a general election they would have a  
> fixed term to operate as they wished, users of the system could  
> change their votes if they didn't like the winner's actions but this  
> winner would still be in office. I think this delegate cascade idea  
> relies so much on the ability to switch votes at will that it would  
> be seriously compromised by any fixed term position.
>
> When I think about integrating a new form of democracy like this  
> with existing forms of representative democracy I think about users  
> agreeing to elect an "administrator" - whose only objective is to  
> faithfully put the plans selected by the voting system into  
> practice. This makes more sense when the outcome of the voting  
> system is a particular course of action rather than an individual  
> who is proposing this particular course of action - but I guess it  
> could be made to work in this way too. The "administrator" could  
> work with whoever the voting system has currently selected until  
> such times as voters change their mind, at which point they would  
> move to facilitating the implementation of policies which the newly  
> preferred candidate stands for.
>
> One other advantage of electing an "administrator" rather than a  
> "candidate" is that it allows voters to turn out to the polls and  
> vote for the system itself, rather than the individual who is at  
> that point in time the system's preferred candidate. To take a  
> simplified example, if 60% of voters/delegates support candidate A  
> and 40% support candidate B at the time of the general election,  
> 100% could turn out to vote for an administrator on the  
> understanding that whether candidate A or B actually filled the  
> position would be determined on a week-by-week basis through the LD  
> voting system.
>
> 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. When people  
> vote in our current forms of representative democracy they make a  
> lot of compromises (we must choose one candidate to represent all of  
> our political views, and this candidate also has to be competent to  
> "put these views into practice").
>
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 6:17 AM, Alex Rollin <alex.rollin at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
> Mario,
>
> I am starting another thread that might lure Mike into talking more  
> about theory, where he wants to go, and what would help with that  
> peripherally or directly, and answer your question.  I don't think I  
> can answer your question, really, so I'll just point.
>
> http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/theory.xht
>
> I spent some time looking for the quick write-up Mike did of the  
> theory he wants to research, which was written to this list.   
> Couldn't find that, so I'll give you a quick link to all the pages  
> that have been created in our user spaces on the wiki:
>
> http://u.zelea.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Special:PrefixIndex&from=&namespace=2
>
> Alex
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Alex
>
> “It’s no longer possible for a country to collapse in isolation.  
> Now we all collapse.
>
> The only path to stability is to equalize the consumption rates of  
> the first and developing world. Our dream is no longer possible in  
> the new world.” - Jared Diamond March 2010
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Its me Mario <puffpastryhangman at gmail.com 
> > wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I stumbled across votorola a few weeks ago and I've been listening  
> in on the google group when time allows. I've been extremely busy so  
> no time to get involved so far (plus not sure what I can bring to  
> the table at this point) but this seems like a good time to poke my  
> head in and say hello.
>
> I'm studying voting-based interaction on the web towards a Sociology/ 
> Stats PhD at a UK University, but the reason I got into that  
> initially was a strong interest in E-Democracy... I couldn't find  
> any really interesting examples of e-democracy to study two years  
> ago, so I've been studying mostly Social News sites until now.
>
> I tried to make my own democratically run non-profit shop last year  
> (still up at www.socapital.org) before realising that I really don't  
> have the programming/web-dev skills to advance e-democracy platforms  
> myself in any meaningful way.
>
> My background is in experimental psychology and I've produced a  
> journal article or two while I was doing that. Experimentation and  
> analysis is what I think I could bring to the Votorola project,  
> although I don't know whether that's on the current list of  
> priorities...
>
> At the point where there's some sort of prototype of the software up  
> and running I could recruit participants and run experimental  
> instances of it (provided I can play with some of the variables of  
> how it works). Or, if you get an instance of the software up and  
> running for public consumption and provide me with detailed data on  
> how its being used I could analyse that to see what I can learn. The  
> goal in both cases would be to produce some findings to publish in a  
> journal article or present at conferences... so it could conceivably  
> help the project both by increasing understanding and increasing  
> awareness among academics.
>
> Like I say I'm very busy these days, but I'll continue to follow the  
> project and if you think of some way that I can help out then let me  
> know!
>
> Richard
>
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com> wrote:
> Alex understands the top-level design of the prototype.  I think he
> also has domain requirements similar to yours David, because it
> appears that his use cases place similar stresses on the design.  You
> guys should talk, as Alex says.
>
> David you mention "common goals".  Just quickly, here are my
> longstanding goals:
>
>  1. Start building the theory.
>     a) Explore and document the theory in academic papers.
>     b) Open a discourse with academics and other theoreticians.
>  2. Finish prototyping the practice.
>     a) Put the architectural documents in proper form.
>     b) Prototype a UI client, such as crossforum theatre (hard).
>     c) Prototype free-range drafting (easy).
>
> Alex may also need 2a and 2b, so we're trying to coordinate.  I hope
> to start shifting my work in that direction by next week.  (Just need
> to catch up on emails Alex (including yours) and post a theory outline
> first.)
>
> Same for you David.  If you need anything under 1 or 2, then we can
> try to coordinate.  But my intial impression is that you have other
> priorities ("delivering an outcome for a client") and you see 1 and 2
> as premature.
>
> David Bovill wrote:
> > ... the scope of any such project can easily be limited to
> > delivering an outcome for a client - after which everyone can go
> > back to their own thing taking whatever code, assets and experiences
> > were generated by the work (as these would be open).
>
> Without a complete, functional prototype we have nothing in principle
> to deliver to anyone, never mind a paying client (if that's the hope).
> We're still exploring the design possiblities, still pioneering.  I
> doubt we're anywhere near any kind of a production stage, yet.  But I
> guess it depends on what we put into it.  So if you want to accelerate
> things, please consider putting stuff into the prototyping effort -
> "after which", as you say, "everyone can go back to their own thing" -
> you to your clients, Alex to his co-ops, I to my theory, and so forth.
>
> --
> 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/20101028/a0c3097c/attachment-0007.html>