Group definition in transitive vote flows

[Michael Allan]

Thomas said:
> What would be the limitations? The diff-bridge should still work,
> right?  Only the mini-votespace would be empty, right? But I guess,
> thats enough of a reason.

True, the only direct effect is in the social votespace.  If I don't
vote, then I'm not formally a member of any group.  This might not
matter in itself, but there are *indirect* consequences:

(1) If I vote, then others can see my draft when they look around and
compare texts.  Likewise I can see theirs.  This is because the bridge
controls are vote-structured.

(2) There is also an effect when joining the discussion.  An advanced
vote is kind of like a smile, or an outstretched hand.  It costs
nothing to offer, but it says more than words.

These fit with the theory, which says the vote is like a master key.
It unlocks all the doors that bar the individual's passage from a
state of political bondage (which we all share) to one of freedom.
The newcomer cannot be expected to understand this, but maybe we can
build the knowledge into the software.  Crucially the key only works
when it is held in one's hand.  Our current lack of freedom is
entirely a consequence of leaving our votes behind in the ballot box
where they do us no good.  I see no other cause.

I'm beginning to think that our mistake in the past was to emphasize
voting *in itself*.  The actual practice of voting is worthless except
in conjunction with other media and other tasks (witness drafting and
discussion).  Likewise, these other media are worthless in themselves
for political purposes.  It is only the combination that works.

Mike

Thomas von der Elbe said:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 22:14, Michael Allan wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> What would be the limitations? The diff-bridge should still work, right? 
> Only the mini-votespace would be empty, right? But I guess, thats enough 
> of a reason.
> 
> >    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.
> 
> Yes, that is a good solution!
> 
> Thomas