RE: [WDDM] Re: Regarding rule by representatives

["Nicolas Durand" <nicolas(at)enitiatives.ch>]

This looks very much like the "Dynamically Distributed Democracy", also
called "DDD" designed by Marko A. Rodriguez and Daniel J. Steinbock
(according to
http://www.answers.com/topic/dynamically-distributed-democracy, the page has
been removed from Wikipedia... ;(

I would also love to implement this concept into Enitiatives, according to
the same simple but powerful concept (simplified and slightly changed here):
1. X trusts Y and gives him/her rights to vote at his place (it could even
be on an issue basis)
2. when Y votes, it will automatically vote ALSO for X (and all the other Xs
who gave him their voices). This is done recursively, meaning that if T gave
his voice to X, Y will also vote for T! One can hence have a huge weight!
3. X (and T) can see (could even be notified) what Y has voted and override
it at will. Y should NOT know about it (to keep the secrecy of the vote).
4. One can give or remove anytime his "procurement".

But this option needs to be used carefully, for 2 reasons:
a) one could create dummy members/citizens, and hence multiply his voting
power very easily
b) the system must make sure (in the real world) that some people do not BUY
(or extort any other way) votes from others.

This is a beautiful system, that would also higher up the turnout,
especially in systems where one frequently votes (like in Switzerland), but
must be handled with care! It also works much better in electronic voting
environments than in paper voting ones.

Cheers,

Nico


-----Original Message-----
From: echarp
Sent: mardi, 22. mai 2007 16:23
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: [WDDM] Re: Regarding rule by representatives

Why not let the participants decide for themselves what level of
representation they want?

Why not make it an individual choice on each issue?

Let's say I trust person X on issue Y, and I don't have much time to
follow this issue on a day to day basis. I could just rely on him.

But, if ever comes up something on issue Y, on which I disagree with X,
then I should be able to:
* change my representative
* override my representative on that particular thing

This should combine the best of both worlds, with less possibilities for
betrayals and waste of energy.

What do you think?

echarp - http://leparlement.org

On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 10:49:04AM +0200, Filia den Hollander wrote:
> There is indeed a greyzone in which two 'paradigms' overlap. There's a
> s y s t e m  (political) and we can make it as tight as we can, but
> there will always be a 'level' in which we have to rely on (read:
> trust) people.

...

> We usually think in terms of 'control' and 'limit the betrayal', but
> there's also the  g i f t  of people willing to spend extratime and
> energy. The one aspect which is usually left out, is that we are
> responsible together for healthy conditions in which we all can 'blossom'.