Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
Latest posts
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: Lemming-DP
-
Lomax wrote: >Mark wrote: > > >L: We are all lemmings, Mark. That you think you are not — and you do > > > think you are not — shows that you have bought your own exalted > > > image of yourself.
> >-M: I do have an exalted image of myself. > >I rock. How am I a lemming?
>L: You rock. You might be shocked to realize how much of what you have said and > written consists of ideas that you have absorbed and repeated without > original analysis. Let’s start with language itself.
-M: I think that I have thought deeply about all issues that I have discussed.
> > >L: And all of us can break out of leeminghood for times. We can’t do it > > > more than occasionally without the people in white coats taking us > > > away. Been there, done that, by the way.
> >-M: I hope that you were the one with the white coat. > >I want to be permenently out of lemminghood.
>L: You want to be dead. That’s what you’d be. No, I was not wearing a white coat. Probably jeans.
-M: I realize the group think is a very human characteristic, but I don’t always equate this with lemmingism.
Lemmingism is correlated with suicidal group think. Those who do group think within authoritative tradition aren’t necissarily lemmings.> > >L: Garbage in, garbage out. If the voter is assigned a proxy, then > > > something provided by the system that assigns the proxy is adding > > > weight to that proxy without any input from the voter.
> >-M: In that case, its being added by other voters.
>L: In which case the proxy is just added power for those other voters. > It’s noise, taking one subset of the data that is missing and filling > it in from what surrounds it. It makes for a seamless picture, but > not for a full picture. It’s pretend data.
-M:‘…not for a full picture…’ – compared with what? The other option is missing data, which is not full picture either. So I make a seamless picture instead of an incomplete picture.
> >With your option, where no proxy is provided, its still other voters’ > >voice being provided instead(that is all that is counted).
>L: Yes. So what’s the difference? Mark below acknowledges that he > distorts the representation:
-M: Yes, representation is distorted, but:
- distortion is the only option (it occurs with missing data too).
- representation isn’t the final goal, republicanism is.
> >The only difference is that my approach attempts to smooth the rank > >distribution curve by giving bonus votes to underdogs. This makes the > >rank structure less clustered and entrenched.
>L: It makes it less representative.
-M: The parallel is administrators and legislators appointing others below them.
More often than not these appointees do not have the votes of others. By contrast, the SD2-S underdogs so have significant votes of others, and the SD2-S system is giving them small and temporary amounts of bonus points to rise and challange potentially entrenched rank clusters.
Again, the goal of representation is a small goal, (but one that SD2-S does better than competing systems) compared to the primary goal of principled governance(republicanism).> >So SD2-S actually does something with the voter’s proxy power instead > >of ignoring it.
>L: It steals the voters proxy power and assigns it to someone.
-M: No, it takes freely given proxy power and makes constructive use of it.
>L: The voter has power directly in standard DP and may choose to (1) exercise it,…
-M: SD2-S does have this DD priciple, but it is for:
- limiting decisions for deliberation
- setting decision thresholds
>L: (2) delegate it…
-M: With SD2-S, delegation is manditory - the idea being that government is always done by others, therefore a voting system should be RD to reflect this fact. And proxy power that isn’t used isn’t merely ignored, but is reused to condition the voting data.
>L: …or (3) abstain. SD2-S excises the first and last option.
-M: SD2-S uses all these options, but tries to use abstained data instead of ignoring it.
>L: It reduces the freedom of the voter.
-M: No, with SD2-S, the voter has the utmost freedom. He/she is given close to 20 vote option combinations.
>L: On the argument that the voter is a “lemming.” (Or is probably a “lemming.”)
-M: The lemming argument is only to justify RD, not specificly SD2-S or its features.
>L: But true lemmings aren’t going to vote directly, most of the time. > Indeed, the hardest thing is going to be to get them to join, unless > most of their circle has joined. If they join, they will probably > delegate or abstain, most of the time….
-M: Any combination of lemmings and non-lemmings will render a:
- popular vote
- generalist vote
- specialist vote
SD2-S will see this, and the decision will be made by the specialist vote(default 60%) as allowed by a threshold of a popular vote (default 40%).
> >L: This is not obvious to Mark because he does not respect the voter in > > > the first place.
> >-M: You are the one who wants to ignore the voter’s proxy power instead > >of doing something constructive with it.
>L: If I do something constructive with someone else’s voting power, I’ve > stolen their vote. Unless, of course, they authorized me to do it. In > other words, they named me as their proxy.
-M: If they are using the voting system, they have authorized the voting system to do something with their missing proxy data.
>L: Very much I don’t want to see this done automatically. It defeats the > major feature of Delegable Proxy, which is personal relationship and > accountability.
-M: Again, Lomax, your ignoring of the missing proxy data still does something automaticly with it by having the effect of redistributing to those who have voted for proxies. By contrast, I do something more useful with it by challenging rank clusters.
>L: […] I’m sure there is some value in there, Mark is one of the > relatively few people who have some understanding of delegable proxy. > So if I’ve missed something that others think I should address, by > all means, tell me. That is, let the others tell me, not Mark. Though > I suppose he could briefly ask for a specific response to a specific > question, if he has any.
-M: How about just conceding to my points?
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
