Vote buying is not a problem in a public system, a direct democracy. It only becomes a problem when power is concentrated, it then becomes possible to apply a relatively small amount of pressure (money or threat) to a vulnerable node. When you have to bribe very many in order to accomplish your goal, it becomes too expensive.
Besides being illegal, generally. Trying to engage in illegal activity with many people gets pretty dangerous.
It is not a problem.—at least it is not a problem that you need to solve.
-I agee with that. So the number of proxies has to be kept high or many has to vote directly. Mening DD should be the base and the goal with DP as a backup for not so interesting issues, or too specialised to the voter who still want somebody to decide for him.
In FA/DP, much communication can take place outside of public view. FA/DP organizations aren’t taking controversial positions as an organization, but people within the organization, brought together by the organization, can. They will elect people who can be trusted to public office, using existing secret ballot procedures.
You have the problem because you are thinking of trying to do this within a structure that is actually exercising power. But that is not where you are going to start.
Build voluntary networks that have what I call collective intelligence. They must be TOP, but not so TOP that people can’t talk to each other privately as individuals. Then, with that intelligence, they will know how and when to deal with possible needs for secrecy.
-Sounds like there will be secret/closed parties forming, just as
today, with hidden agendas.
I don’t like the idea of so much non-TOP. Ofcourse you can never stop
people from discussing individually, but once you do it in a group,
it’s something else.
A person who supposedly represents a million people who has a bad idea and promotes it is still a person with a bad idea. Only if he can convince others to implement the idea does it become actually dangerous. FAs don’t concentrate power, except for communication access. And communication is not forced on anyone. If the other proxies have learned that proxy M, representing or supposedly representing a million people, constantly comes up with bad ideas, they will simply discount him. Are they disregarding a million people? Probably not. The test comes when the rest of the proxies agree on something, believe that M is full of hot air, and go ahead with action, such as funding the campaign of someone for President. Do campaign funds show up for the candidate supported by M?
If not, that million people either does not exist, or doesn’t care and M just collected the proxies without actually being trusted by them, or they have no resources. They will still have votes, if they are real. So does M’s candidate get at least a million votes?
No, M would be better off learning to work with the others. Perhaps he needs to find a proxy who communicates well, but who will also tell him when his idea stinks, and why….
-Sounds complicated and not so easy to forecast what would happen.
A lot of possibilties for a corrupt M to manouver into support of the
others and find their support anyway.
What differs it from todays RD systems?
BR/
Magnus
--—-—----—-—-—---—~
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