Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (0) (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
For now, I want to know about your directional Markov-algorithm foryour V-V-V system. How does it differ from PageRank?
A participant can directly vote on issues, or can delegate his voice on each issue to someone else.
This delegation is transitive, that is, his delegate can also delegate his 2 voices to another individual, who can also delegate his 3 voices to yet another one. No limit.
One can change anytime his actions.
A direct vote will, of course, override an indirect delegation.
Thus, someone participating will have two available actions for each issue:
Some differences:
But of course, do carry on as usual and have fun with yourself.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
For now, I want to know about your directional Markov-algorithm foryour V-V-V system. How does it differ from PageRank?
ec: A participant can directly vote on issues, or can delegate his voice on each issue to someone else.This delegation is transitive, that is, his delegate can also delegate his 2 voices to another individual, who can also delegate his 3 voices to yet another one. No limit.
-M: Unlimited depth – like PageRank. But I notice that it is only one delegate per voter. Again, because there is only one, there is no ability to fork around dead ends and loops. This creates instabilities and is overly centralized compared with having multiple proxies. Well, what is your response?
ec: One can change anytime his actions. A direct vote will, of course, override an indirect delegation.
-M: ‘of course’ – again, why the override? Why not let the voter decide if there is going to be an override or not? Maybe the voter wants both a direct vote and more than one delegate. SD2-S allows for this. How is your way better?
ec: Thus, someone participating will have two available actions for each issue:- +1 or -1 (this will certainly evolve in time) – delegate to someone else
-M: SD2-Smartocracy offers:
The only two that are mutually exclusive are #1 and #3. This yields about 20 different combination possibilities for the voter. How is your way better?
ec: Some differences:- no rank or other such silly concepts
-M: Delegates all have differing voting power relative to one another. This is rank whether it is called ‘rank’ or not. (I have said this before, and this is an uncontested point of mine.)
ec: – direct expression override indirect one
-M: Why? If you need administrators anyway, why not just bundle them
into the vote?
This would make a manditory rep vote, and with SD2-S, they would still
have the option for a direct vote. (This is another uncontested point
of mine.)
ec: – software won’t assign votes without human participation
-M: You aren’t comparing V-V-V with PageRank, you are now comparing V-V-V with SD2-S. Fine, this is better.
SD2-S’s Dance-Monkey algorithm will assign a rep vote only if the individual voter doesn’t select at least two manditory reps. There is still human participation here – Dance-Monkey is just looking for gaps in the rank distribution curve to fill, this rank distribution is created entirely by human participation. Without human participation, humans selecting other humans, all voters would be equal. Under this condition, Dance-Monkey would be DD.
ec: – not tens of elements onto which to intervene for every issue
-M: A critique of user flexibility?
I offer the voter 5 options.
On any issue vote, a voter selecting an issue position and one delegate
would be fine.
The defaults would cover the rest.
Does anyone have a better way?
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
At 05:19 PM 9/4/2006, echarp wrote:
A participant can directly vote on issues, or can delegate his voice [oneach issue] to someone else.This delegation is transitive, that is, his delegate can also delegatehis 2 voices to another individual, who can also delegate his 3 voicesto yet another one. No limit.[One can change anytime his actions.]A direct vote will, of course, override an indirect delegation.This is, quite simply, delegable proxy, except that in the work of BeyondPolitics.org, we generally assume a general proxy rather than issue-specific proxies. However, specific proxies are a possibility. (Technically, since our work is mostly toward the implementation of DP in Free Associations, just about anything is a possibility.)
A specific issue proxy would, if assigned, override the general proxy assignment.
However, once again, an organization can make just about any rules it likes. What I quoted above, except for what I put in quotes, is what we call delegable proxy. I put the differences in brackets.
We assume that one may change one’s proxy at any time. If that is what was meant by “one can change anytime his actions,” then this is part of our concept.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:51:59PM -0400, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
A specific issue proxy would, if assigned, override the general proxy assignment.Of course.
We assume that one may change one’s proxy at any time. If that is what was meant by “one can change anytime his actions,” then this is part of our concept.
Then it is :)
Why not also allow to change one’s votes anytime?
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
At 05:56 AM 9/6/2006, echarp wrote:
Why not also allow to change one’s votes anytime?Depends on the voting system. Where votes are public record, it would not usually be a problem. Yahoogroups polls, if I’m correct, allow one to change one’s vote at any time up until the poll is closed.
In an FA, there are two kinds of polls. One is to make decisions,
which in FAs are rather limited, generally to procedural issues.
“Shall the mailing list be moderated?” In some cases an action that
is not easily revocable will be made. For such an issue, there is a
natural closing time for the poll. Where a condition is continuing
and could change at any time - the moderation question is an example
- a poll can be standing, and anyone could change their vote at any
time, and if it shifts the result, the action could similarly shift.
The other purpose of a poll in an FA, which is the most significant for our purposes here, is to measure consensus with regard to a possibly controversial issue. If there is, in fact, controversy, a poll could remain standing until it becomes moot. For example, “Shall members of the FA vote for Candidate X in November, 2008” The FA is not electing the President and the FA itself is not going to make a recommendation. However, a political FA is nevertheless quite able to facilitate communication, and it can also report facts. The result of an FA poll is a fact. In this case, though, the poll will become moot after election day, it would make no sense to allow vote changes after that.
If polls remain open, the results of a poll are transient. All this means is that any official report of the poll, where the FA itself announces the poll results, must be dated. “As of 12:00 AM, December 1, 2006, 98% of the members either voted or were represented by a proxy who voted. The result at that time was X.”
FA/DP organizations are in themselves all talk and no action, so to speak. But the talking is done by and considered by people who will act, and the process is one which, in theory, should allow groups of people to readily identify each other for the purpose of coordinated, cooperative action. Further, it would unite such people together with others with, possibly, opposite views, and these opposing groups could know their relative strengths (in numbers, at least. Not necessarily in financial resources, though there could be means of measuring that as well. Where financial resources are being measured, mere report won’t suffice….). This is the configuration that I expect is likely to facilitate the formation of broader consensus than is possible through the current fragmented political process, which actually encourages disagreement and opposition, it feeds on it.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 09:39:17PM -0400, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 05:56 AM 9/6/2006, echarp wrote:I do tend to think in terms of electronic communications. Yes, changing votes would imply that any result would require an associated time stamp.Why not also allow to change one’s votes anytime?Depends on the voting system. Where votes are public record, it would not usually be a problem. Yahoogroups polls, if I’m correct, allow one to change one’s vote at any time up until the poll is closed.
And if polls are closed at a given time, for exterior conditions for example, then any change is moot, and can merely act as an opinion poll.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer