Re: Regarding rule by representatives

[echarp <emmanuel.charpentier(at)free.fr>]

Do you have a /certitude/ that delegation would have the same drawbacks
as representation?

I would think that delegation is not /quite/ like representation.
Because it is *much* easier to control. You don't just vote and
forget...

Yes, lower thresholds are an alternative to a representation or
delegation system. But they have one big disadvantage: the process could
degenerate in a fight between disciplined groups. Parties following
blindly all orders could be all powerful.

I'm not religious about per issue delegation. Just it seems like a good
middle ground between direct and representative democracies. It's a
gesture toward pragmatism. Toward the fact that no matter the technical
setup, some will follow what others ask them to do.

Plus, we do need to designate the executive branch, judges, generals or
civil servants. If you don't use delegation, what else, back to
representation?

Anyway, I'm not going to code delegation anytime soon, I've got other
things to do first, like electoral lists or PGP signatures.

echarp - http://leparlement.org

On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 04:51:53AM -0700, M. Kolar wrote:
> echarp:
>  I think that we have been discussing this matter before. I have never
> been a big fan of the delegation of votes to various representatives
> (even issue based) such as practised in your system or in former Vivarto
> (now the World Parliament Experiment, tgde.org).
> After giving it some more thought, I am now completely against this
> practise.
> I think that its main effect (goal) is just to give the impression of
> larger turnout, to cave to the present day requirement for various
> unreasonably high participation threshold requirements in some
> referenda. But the danger is that is may be misused. Some people may get
> trust of a number of other people to delegate votes to them on all or
> some issues. Then they could vote however they wish, completely opposite
> to the impression they made when vying for the delegated votes. The
> possibility of delegation would attract the same type of people that are
> our current "representatives." I expect that only those voters who are
> "lazy" to educate themselves about various issues would delegate their
> votes if  representative-type person gets hold of them and persuades
> them that he-she will represents them well. Such voters will then quite
> probably forget soon about the whole thing, and will not be checking on
> their delegated representatives how they are actually voting on behalf
> of them, so they can to stop the delegation.
>  And even if they would follow all the time the voting of their chosen
> representatives, how what savings will it bring to them? To be able to
> check on them, they would have to educate themselves on a given issue
> anyway. If they do that, why would they then bother to delegate their
> votes if they were qualified to vote themselves? It does not make any
> sense to me. Only great potential to use gullible people.
>   It is more honest to simply have No Opinion on a given matter and do
> not vote at all, and let other people who have an opinion decide this
> matter, but each of them having only one vote for themselves, not
> blind-faith delegation of votes. Thus we must not have any participation
> threshold. Even if (on a national level) only a thousand informed people
> will vote on a minor issue, it is still more than a usual number of
> deputies in a parliament, who are no experts in a given matter.
>   So I am completely against the vote delegation.. Better no to
> complicate the voting or deliberation systems with delegation of votes.
> Instead better provide everybody interested with enough resources to
> educate themselves on the given issue.
>
> Mirek