[top-politics] Re: Disagreeable

Mark Rosst — 2006-09-13 02:49:18+0200

>S: I guess I should have started by asking this instead. Do you have a > definition document of some kind of SD2-S as a system?

-M: Good question. I just now looked and the closest thing to documentation is my ‘screenshot’ posts. I do have a Yahoo group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sd-2/
and my constraints for SD2 as an umbrella system are here. But this is just for selecting generalist/trustees/directors, SD2-S is much more sophisticated.

To understand SD2-S, look at the screenshot, and understand the default hierarchy:
If specialists are not selected by the voter for an issue, then the previous generalist/trustees are defaulted to.

[top-politics] Re: Disagreeable

Serge — 2006-09-13 02:09:40+0200

Hey,

I guess I should have started by asking this instead. Do you have a definition document of some kind of SD2-S as a system? Instead of asking fragmentory questions and getting logically fragmentary answers, it’d probably be a better starting point. I have to say I am confused as to the thresholds, whether it’s all functionning in parallel or as aggregates, whether you actually expect 40% of the whole voting population to cast a direct vote on each issue – even if through a position through proxy, etc etc etc. And direct voting is a voter directly casting his vote to be counted on a given proposal/issue.

Regards,

Serge

[top-politics] Re: Disagreeable

Mark Rosst — 2006-09-13 01:33:38+0200

>S: Hey, Thanks for the link. I must be missing somthing though. At one point you state: Decisions are still made entirely by RD and then:

> “-M: Its not proxy judgement or personal judgement, its proxy > judgement and personal judgement, so the position that one takes gets > counted as the popular vote, and it gets counted as the proxy vote when > someone else selects the voter.”

>S: The second statement seems to imply that popular voting, ie DD, is > playing a role (which is what I understood from your screenshot), as > opposed to what the first statement is suggesting. Could you clear > this? In the case of someone selecting a voter that has already cast a > vote as his proxy, isn’t it similar in effect as direct voting? Feel > free to point me to an old post if this has been discussed before.