Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (1) (1) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0)
Highest posts
Latest posts
Links
Highest posts
Latest posts
At 07:09 PM 11/4/2006, Mark wrote:
You rock.L: We are all lemmings, Mark. That you think you are not — and you dothink you are not — shows that you have bought your own exaltedimage of yourself.-M: I do have an exalted image of myself.I rock. How am I a lemming?
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.
You want to be dead. That’s what you’d be.L: And all of us can break out of leeminghood for times. We can’t do itmore than occasionally without the people in white coats taking usaway. 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.
No, I was not wearing a white coat. Probably jeans.
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.L: Garbage in, garbage out. If the voter is assigned a proxy, thensomething provided by the system that assigns the proxy is addingweight to that proxy without any input from the voter.-M: In that case, its being added by other voters.
With your option, where no proxy is provided, its still other voters’voice being provided instead(that is all that is counted).
Yes. So what’s the difference? Mark below acknowledges that he distorts the representation:
The only difference is that my approach attempts to smooth the rankdistribution curve by giving bonus votes to underdogs. This makes therank structure less clustered and entrenched.
It makes it less representative.
So SD2-S actually does something with the voter’s proxy power insteadof ignoring it.
It steals the voters proxy power and assigns it to someone.
The voter has power directly in standard DP and may choose to (1) exercise it, (2) delegate it, or (3) abstain.
SD2-S excises the first and last option. It reduces the freedom of the voter. On the argument that the voter is a “lemming.” (Or is probably a “lemming.”)
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….
L: This is not obvious to Mark because he does not respect the voter inIf 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.the first place.-M: You are the one who wants to ignore the voter’s proxy power insteadof doing something constructive with it.
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.
Faagh! Enough.
I didn’t go over the rest of the message except for a very cursory glance. 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.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
New discussion
Answer
Lomax wrote:
Mark wrote:L: We are all lemmings, Mark. That you think you are not — and you dothink you are not — shows that you have bought your own exaltedimage 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 andwritten consists of ideas that you have absorbed and repeated withoutoriginal 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 itmore than occasionally without the people in white coats taking usaway. 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.
L: Garbage in, garbage out. If the voter is assigned a proxy, thensomething provided by the system that assigns the proxy is addingweight 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 fillingit in from what surrounds it. It makes for a seamless picture, butnot 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 hedistorts the representation:
-M: Yes, representation is distorted, but:
The only difference is that my approach attempts to smooth the rankdistribution curve by giving bonus votes to underdogs. This makes therank 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 insteadof 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:
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, unlessmost of their circle has joined. If they join, they will probablydelegate or abstain, most of the time….
-M: Any combination of lemmings and non-lemmings will render a:
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 inthe first place.
-M: You are the one who wants to ignore the voter’s proxy power insteadof doing something constructive with it.
L: If I do something constructive with someone else’s voting power, I’vestolen their vote. Unless, of course, they authorized me to do it. Inother 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 themajor feature of Delegable Proxy, which is personal relationship andaccountability.
-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 therelatively few people who have some understanding of delegable proxy.So if I’ve missed something that others think I should address, byall means, tell me. That is, let the others tell me, not Mark. ThoughI suppose he could briefly ask for a specific response to a specificquestion, 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
New discussion
Answer