Group definition in transitive vote flows

[Michael Allan]

Thomas and I skyped about this a few days ago.  I agree that an
impersonal candidate will be better than a full candidate in some
situations.  We spoke of the attendant problems:

 (a) How to formalize the impersonal candidate?  This would be a break
     with the current design, where "a candidate always has two
     aspects: an active aspect and a personal aspect.  The active
     aspect is the proposed act.  The personal aspect is the person
     who proposes, or represents, or embodies the act."
     http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/theory.xht#candidate

     This is a technical problem.  As I mentioned already, we can
     probably create a special type of user/count-node with a single-
     -cast weight of 0.  It could not contribute volume to the vote
     flow, but it could carry and redirect that flow.
     http://zelea.com/project/votorola/_/javadoc/votorola/a/count/CountNode.html#singleCastCount()

 (b) What mechanism powers the impersonal candidate?  Who or what
     "pulls the strings" that replace the agency of the person in
     representing the group to others, editing the common text, voting
     on behalf of the group, and so forth?

     I guess this is a social problem.  It is probably better to leave
     it for the group itself to sort out.

Thomas said:
> So one result of this for me: the creation of a position is the main
> entry-point into a poll, not the voting. This should be valued more
> in the software. Maybe we could give each drafter a vote for his
> draft and count it ... feels also natural. Or if the count-engine is
> strictly for delegation, then maybe count the drafters in the wiki,
> so we have a number of participants in the poll. (Again, I'd rather
> encourage them not to vote, but just to draft in the beginning.)

My current plan is to subordinate vote casting to draft creation.  So:

  1. Newcomer N is looking at a scene in which actor A happens to be
     on stage.

  2. N clicks "my draft".

  3. Software asks, "Do you want to create a draft?"

     "Yes"

  4. "You were looking at A's position.  Would you like your initial
     draft to be a copy of A's draft?"

     "Yes"

  5. "What about your initial vote?  Should it be:"

      (a) a copy of A's vote?
      (b) for A?
      (c) for someone else?
      (d) for nobody?

But this is problematic, isn't it?  N will be alarmed at this point
and unsure how to respond.  The safest bet seems to be (d), but
actually that's the worst choice.  If you don't cast an initial vote,
then the tools won't work the same as they do for others.  We cannot
easily correct that in the software.  Voting is a crucial formality
for large polls, and we can't easily have different software for small
polls.  But what if we add something like this to step 5, instead:

     "A recommends that you choose (a).  A says, 'Welcome N!  We
      recommend voting for the common text because the software will
      be easier to use if your vote initially matches ours.  Don't
      worry, you can always shift your vote later!'"

So a voting recommendation for newcomers.  You encode it in your
position page and it's shown to anyone who creates a draft off yours.
The idea is to ease entry for newcomers by reducing the barriers.

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/


Thomas von der Elbe said:
> Lately I have been thinking a lot about how to start a poll. I always 
> thought, I had a clear picture of how Votorola could be used and behave 
> with large numbers of voters and imagined it to be the same for low 
> numbers in the beginning of a poll. I think I was wrong in both regards.
> 
> Because, if it was natural, nobody would have to vote in the beginning. 
> People just meet and express their positions to each other. No voting, 
> no delegation, but lots of talk and exchange of ideas, positions, ... 
> Ofc, at some point people will want to group together to express their 
> common view. But naturally it would not be behind a delegate. (A 
> delegates only purpose is to represent a group to the next deeper 
> delegate. But in the core group there is no further delegate, so he is 
> useless.) Naturally they would just draft a common position together, 
> still each having their own positions too. Just a group of people 
> together editing a wiki-page or a pirate-pad (ether-pad). Now this page 
> could run under Mikes proposed group-email-adress. At some point the 
> discussion will get to crowded, to noisy ... so the natural solution 
> would be: "People! Group together behind positions and choose 
> representatives! Only those with at least 2 votes are from now on 
> allowed to talk and to edit the common page!" and so on up the numbers 
> and up the tree.
> 
> This extreme case of the beginning of a poll makes a problem visible, 
> which I didn't see before: the role of delegate which himself wants to 
> be voter too. Two possibly contradictory roles. With the creation of 
> such group-positions, these roles are seperated, as they belong. One can 
> be elected as the groups representative, but at the same time remain its 
> voter.
> 
> So one result of this for me: the creation of a position is the main 
> entry-point into a poll, not the voting. This should be valued more in 
> the software. Maybe we could give each drafter a vote for his draft and 
> count it ... feels also natural. Or if the count-engine is strictly for 
> delegation, then maybe count the drafters in the wiki, so we have a 
> number of participants in the poll. (Again, I'd rather encourage them 
> not to vote, but just to draft in the beginning.)
> 
> 
> Thomas