I have another question for you, concerning the proposed 'open electoral system'. I think there may be organizations that have the means and incentive to help with its deployment in an orderly way, and to reduce the risk of problems (social and technical). So I ask for your advice:

An open electoral system (to recall) would allow the public to choose its own candidates, and to back them, well before an official election. Here is a summary (references are at the bottom, for more details):

1. Each citizen would carry a single vote per office, with which to 'back' any other citizen as a candidate for that office.

   The citizen could also withdraw this backing at any time, or transfer it to another candidate. (In other words, the election would be continuous.)

2. A candidate's own vote (as a citizen) would carry with it the votes of all his/her backers.

   (This is called a 'delegate cascade'.)

3. When the time came for the official election, an open candidate that had sufficient public backing might decide to enter the official race.
   

Assume that an open electoral system, like this, could be developed and ready for deployment within about 3 to 5 months. Assume also that it might be deployed in many communities, around the world. And furthermore:

A. Assume these goals (for orderly deployment):

1. Cautious, coordinated, step-wise deployment, so that the biggest problems are solved before the system becomes widespread.

2. Coordination among communities, so that each community can learn from others, and share solutions.

3. Effective communication with government, law enforcement, and other concerned agencies.

4. Keep systems inter-operable among among communities, to permit (eventual) international elections.
   

B. Assume also these principles (for sake of the question):

1. The electoral system is the public's; it is owned, operated, policed and protected by the public.

2. The electoral system is an experiment by the public, a test of a new technology by the public. Those who wish to participate will try it out, see if they like it, and maybe help to improve it.

3. No essential part of the system will be under the control of any government, organization or individual, except with effective oversight by the public.

4. The system will be designed and developed openly: with an open architecture, and free and open source software.

5. The system will be deployed openly: keeping the public informed about intentions and actions along the way; and being responsive to public concerns.
   

The question has three parts:

1. What organizations could:

   a) Provide help in achieving the goals above (to those communities that wish to receive help), and

   b) Adhere to the principles above, and

   c) Benefit from doing so?

2. For each organization, how would it benefit? What might it gain?

3. By the same token, what might it lose?
   

The idea is, these organizations could be informed sooner, rather
than later, and then be better prepared to provide help.

--
Michael Allan

http://zelea.com/

August 14, 2007. The open electoral system was first discussed here:

http://groups.google.com/group/torcamp/browse_frm/thread/486035734280d5f9
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=5&t=002357
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research/messages/topic/1Zbd0H1N6LASECK8AzLJQX

http://lists.hmdc.harvard.edu/lists/apsa_itp_at_lists_hmdc_harvard_edu/2007_08/thre ads.html
- see 1/"A quiet revolution in democracy," and
2/"Can committees create great ... whatever's?"

August 20, 2007. Its design was sketched and discussed here:

http://lists.hmdc.harvard.edu/lists/apsa_itp_at_lists_hmdc_harvard_edu/2007_08/thre ads.html
- see "open electoral system (strawman plan)"

August 24, 2007. This message will be submitted to several forums:

http://lists.hmdc.harvard.edu/lists/apsa_itp_at_lists_hmdc_harvard_edu/2007_08/thre ads.html
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=forum&f=5
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/consult

[ 25 August 2007: Message edited by: Michael Allan ]

[ 25 August 2007: Message edited by: Michael Allan ]

[ 25 August 2007: Message edited by: Michael Allan ]

[ 25 August 2007: Message edited by: Michael Allan ]

I have been considering similar things in terms of what a serious use of modern communication/computation tools would be for a party.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
What you really have there is a model for running political parties. Pretty highly democratic political parties.

---

Partly true. A political party could use a system *like* this (or at least its voting mechanism). Any organization could, if it wanted to conduct elections of people.

However, this particular system is for all of the public. Its voter registry is rooted in physical neighborhoods. It is intended to be deployed (in the systems sense, not the soldierly ) across an entire community. So it would include all neighbourhoods, and all citizens who wished to vote. And any of them (not just party members) would be eligible to nominate and back candidates. For example, if a citizen were to cast a vote for someone who was not yet a candidate, she would automatically be nominated and backed, by virtue of receiving that vote.

It could lead to political parties, like you say. It *would* to the extent that people *preferred* to elect party members, or were maybe *indifferent* to the idea. But, in a hypothetical community where people did not like parties (for some reason), that community would tend to elect non-aligned, independent candidates.

On the other hand, I imagine that in parliament (say), even if all the MPs were independent (say), they would still have to form 'parties' (coalitions etc.) to negotiate daily legislative business, and votes of confidence, etc. However, each independent MP would remain free to negotiate on an issue-by-issue basis, on behalf of her constituents (us). So she would never have to choose between obeying the party whip, or obeying her constituents. She would always obey the latter.

The reason is, any loss of public trust would be expressed almost immediately. This is because the elections are *continuous*. So, an MP who betrayed the public's trust (just imagine), would wake up in the morning to discover that she was no longer the top candidate for re-election. Instead, she would have a rival (or several). And those rivals might feel duty bound to begin asking her questions, in public, to account for her unexpected behaviour. And if she were unable to answer them, her hopes of re-election might be slim. She would have to struggle to regain her lead, before the next election. And if the public (going about their daily business), were to forget about her betrayal, they would quickly be reminded of it by the rival candidates (duty bound to represent the trust placed in *them*).

Two good points. I think the second (where's the debate?) is partly answered in my previous post (sorry to cross-post you). There is still parliament, and still debate there. At the same time, there is added scope for debate in the community, and between the community and the representative in parliament.

Your first point (uninformed voter) is best answered by looking at the voting mechanism, the 'delegate cascade'. With this, a citizen need only vote for someone she trusts, who she feels is competent. And that decision need only be based on reliable, trusted information.

For example, imagine there's a mayoral election coming up. There were 5 or so top candidates, and I have no idea which of them should be mayor. No problem, because I'm voting for my neighbour down the street. Why? Because I have reliable information about her, and I think she'd be a better mayor than I.

Now, take it one more step: If she *would* be a better mayor -- and I am convinced of this, because I have seen her perform well under public pressure -- then she would probably also be better at *choosing* a mayor. In voting for her, then, I am trusting her judgment in mayoral matters, based on reliable information that I have. And she will pass that trust up to higher candidates.

If I wish, I can follow the cascade, and see where my vote ends up (from me, to her, and so on). And if I disagree with the result, then I could confront her, and ask her questions. I might even shift my vote, if she could not explain herself. (And here, again, is more debate.)

[ 25 August 2007: Message edited by: Michael Allan ]

quote:

---

Now, take it one more step: If she *would* be a better mayor -- and I am convinced of this, because I have seen her perform well under public pressure -- then she would probably also be better at *choosing* a mayor. In voting for her, then, I am trusting her judgment in mayoral matters, based on reliable information that I have. And she will pass that trust up to higher candidates

---

I must have misunderstood, because I thought you were speaking of *organized* political parties -- complex entities with formal members, leaders, party discipline, financial donors, etc. That is what *I* meant by 'party'.

You are only saying that voters will decide for *themselves* who to elect as their candidates. Oh yes, I agree, that is the intention.

In reply to jeff house, first with respect to democracy,

From the goals and principles (above):

• Cautious, coordinated, step-wise deployment, so that the biggest problems are solved before the system becomes widespread.
• The electoral system is an experiment by the public, a test of a new technology by the public. Those who wish to participate will try it out, see if they like it, and maybe help to improve it.
  

If we visit the first riding, where the system is being tested by the public, and we discover that they are building castles and putting on armour, we'll say, "Whoa, this looks like Feudalism..." And we'll remind folks that participation in this is entirely voluntary.

Also, I'm not a political scientist, but to me this system for choosing candidates sounds more democratic than feudal. If Jane average citizen, say, wants her neighbourhood hero to be a candidate in the next election, then she casts a vote for her. (Hardly feudal, eh?)

Can you explain, jeff, how she would do this today? What are the steps an ordinary citizen goes through, in order to make her neighbourhood hero an election candidate?

Also, please explain to her, what kind of democracy lies behind the idea of presenting her with a list of pre-selected candidates on election day? Specifically, she wants to know: Who are these candidates, anyway? Where did they come from? What input did I have, in their selection?

And, with respect to "barriers between citizens and the government,"

I assume you mean barriers to prevent us citizens from influencing our government? You don't mean the other way around (though we can discuss that too, if you like).

Can you describe a specific situation, then? For example, describe a situation in which a citizen, today, has effective influence on her government.

We are speaking of the backing behind a political candidate. The question is: should it be public or private?

This came up earlier, in one of the APSA_ITP threads (references above). The issue was vote buying. At the time, I suggested we might hide the vote cascade (backing), in whole or part. It would then be the equivalent of a secret ballot in an official election. And I also pointed out, at the time, that this would have costs: in system complexity, policing of the hidden parts, and voter trust. I suggested it all hinged on whether or not vote buying laws could be enforced. We left it at that, I think.

(You might have some other issue in mind. I will talk briefly about this one, because it was on my mind recently. But please correct me if I am missing your point.)

My own position would be to defend the strength of the system, and attack the issue of vote buying. The strength of a public system depends on its openness. Information should not be hidden from the public, without justification.

Is vote buying a big enough threat, to justify keeping the public in the dark? Here we have the opposition of private interests and public ones.

We might begin by asking: What do these private interests hope to gain by buying up votes? Will political office be so lucrative, that it justifies spending large sums of money to get elected? Large sums indeed are spent under the current system, in campaigning and who knows what else. (It's a curious thing, to figure how all that investment pays for itself, in the end, and gets returned to the pockets that provided it.) But will such large sums be spent, under the new electoral system?

And then: Can vote buying laws be enforced? Who are the likely buyers and sellers? Could the police infiltrate a vote buying ring, or would that be too difficult? What effect would exposure of the ring have on the vote sellers, implicated as such, by the public record of their past votes?

The other is persecution for unpopular belief. If my boss is a Kyoto hater for example and he finds out that I voted Green then that could cause me major issues.

Two good concerns. The first is the potential for discrimination of citizens based on their public voting record (assuming it is public, for argument's sake). I am not qualified to say too much. One thing is, voting is optional. Those who fear to disclose their beliefs can keep them private; at the cost, however, of partially disenfranchising themselves (i.e. wherever those beliefs could be tied to their voting behaviour).

Another suggestion is, it can work two ways. Imagine a business firm (for instance) that had the habit of punishing its employees based on their political beliefs. Because of that habit, the firm would be exposing itself to charges of discrimination -- perhaps before the Law, or perhaps before the court of public opinion -- in which the voting record of its employees could serve as evidence against the firm.

Your second concern is: Would the citizen retain effective control/ownership of her own vote, after it is cast? Oh yes, she would. She would a) see exactly where her vote goes, in the delegate cascade (assuming, again, it is all public); and b) remain free to take it back, and to shift it as she pleases. Her vote would be one aspect of her public voice, and it would never pass from her control.

And her voice could rarely be ignored. Vote shifts would likely be 'felt' immediately by those higher in the cascade. The highest of all might be the current office holder. But, any citizen who had acquired a constituency of backers -- however large or small -- would, by that fact, have become a political leader. Her constituents would look to her for decisions and actions on their behalf. And she would listen to their voices, and pay close attention to their vote shifts. This would come naturally to her, because leaders are good listeners.

That "rough design sketch" is now being developed into a complete software design for an open electoral system, preparatory to coding. For details, please see: http://zelea.com/project/votorola/