Michael Allan wrote:
> Craig Burton wrote:
>
>> This bears some resemblance to http://smartocracy.net/. It looks
>> interesting, I will try to look further. ...
>>
>
> Yes, Smartocracy is an instance of cascade voting. I've referenced a
> report on it by Rodriguez et al., here:
>
> http://zelea.com/project/votorola/a/design.xht#Notes-and-References
>
> Pivato also describes a form of cascade voting (also referenced
> there). If you know of any others, Craig, please share.
>
>
>
>> ... Shortly we will build a
>> smartocracy for opensocial.
>>
>
> Interesting! What will the application be? Will it be political?
> Can you enforce a single vote, per voter, in Google's OpenSocial? Or
> will OpenSocial be nothing but a user interface onto a separate
> electoral server?
>
> I've been thinking of a Web interface for Votorola. In fact, I'm
> inviting Web developers to code a variety of user interfaces for it.
> (We needn't tie ourselves to a particular interface provider, such as
> Google. In fact, that could be a liability for an electoral system.)
>
>
>>> Might anyone be interested in conducting some light research into
>>> cascade voting and open elections? I ask because I am not a scholar
>>> of political science (but a software practioner), ...
>>>
>
> An update: I've made some research headway on my own (or so I tell
> myself). My need no longer seems to be political science, but rather
> sociology (or maybe general social science). I've just posted some
> research questions to the NCDD list:
>
>
http://lists.thataway.org/SCRIPTS/WA-THATAWAY.EXE?A2=ind0802C&L=NCDD-DISCUSSION&P=18816
>
> Unfortunately, you must be registered in order to view NCDD posts.
> For anyone who isn't, here is a copy of the post (apologies to those
> who receive it twice), and my research questions:
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> I forgot to introduce myself in my last post (apologies). I am a
> software engineer. I took part in the discussion that Tim
> mentions... ['Building consensus online', in DoWire group 'consult'].
> The discussion ended with open questions (at least in my mind) about
> the societal effects of consensus. They're difficult for a software
> practitioner to answer, but maybe easier for practitioners of dialogue
> and deliberation (D&D)? So I am requesting your help...
>
> My own arguments in the previous discussion are abstracted (with
> cross-references) here:
>
> http://zelea.com/project/votorola/a/design.xht#consensus-and-power
>
> But they can be summarized more succinctly as a 'principle of
> sovereign consensus':
>
> Where a societal-community forms a consensus on a question of
> politics, action will follow in the political sphere. To the extent
> that consensus forms freely and independently, therefore, and to the
> extent that it covers political decisions in general (which officers
> to empower, which policies to follow, which laws to enact),
> consensus will rule society.
>
> This is intended as a predictive principle, not a normative one. It
> states what will happen, not what ought to happen. First question:
>
> *(1)* Is the principle of sovereign consensus sound? (Is its prediction a
> reasonable one?)
>
> (Of course, I think the answer is, "Yes." That was my argument in the
> previous thread.)
>
>
> (2) Assume (for sake of the following questions) that the principle of
> sovereign consensus *is* sound.
>
> (3) Assume that a free and independent method to form large-scale
> consensus is available to communities. Assume that it is generally
> employed by communities (large and small), in democratic societies
> around the world. Assume that it extends to cover political decisions
> in general.
>
> (4) Assume that no economic or political effect of the change imposes
> a negative cost on the communities. (My mental picture of society
> follows Parson's schema, shown in the figure here:)
>
> http://zelea.com/project/votorola/a/design.xht#communicative-action
>
> *(5)* What are the expected effects, mutatis mutandis, on societal
> communities? I mean the effects that would concern a sociologist (not
> those that are internal to the cultural, economic and political
> spheres). I mean both the indirect effects of instrumental control
> (via political action), and the direct, reflective effects of holding
> such an instrument.
>
> (I think the answer is that the theory of communicative action (TCA)
> broadly predicts the effects. But my own understanding of TCA is
> weak.)
>
>
> (6) Assume that the method to form consensus depends on the following
> new media:
>
> (6a) A medium for the collective composition and refinement of
> cultural objects (texts). This is a social medium that assumes the
> structure and dynamics of the society in which it is embedded.
> Specifically, the structure of the medium is a population, one that
> mirrors the community of authors. In this medium, the text exists as
> a population of variant drafts. Its composition is driven by tensions
> among the authors that mirror similar tensions in the society. As the
> text evolves in response to these tensions, it is pulled into a shape
> that reflects the society in all of its similarity and diversity (and
> even in its contradictions). (Example, recombinant text.)
>
> (6b) A consensual medium that enables individuals (of the community)
> to freely express their agreement or disagreement with each other by
> choosing instances from a dynamic population of alternatives ("I like
> A, you like B", and so on); while simultaneously, at a collective
> level, it encourages the emergence of an unforced consensus ("sure, I
> can settle for B, provided you make a few changes..."). On its own,
> with only the members of the community itself as the instances of
> choice (people choosing people), this medium may be employed to
> nominate and elect public officers. (Example: delegate cascade
> voting.)
>
> (6c) A combination of the compositional medium (6a) and the consensual
> medium (6b). The consensual medium has the effect of encouraging the
> population of variant drafts to evolve toward a single draft (if
> consensus is feasible), or to several co-extant drafts (if not). This
> combined medium may be employed to nominate and promulgate policy
> documents and laws.
>
> (7) Assume the compositional medium (6a) is generally employed by
> communities (large and small) of artists, utopianists, religous
> visionaries, and so forth.
>
> *(8)* What will be the cultural effects?
>
> *(9)* How will cultural effects (8) interplay with societal-communal
> effects (5)?
>
>
> *(10)* How will the practice of D&D fit with the practice of
> composition and consensus? In theory, a political consensus depends
> on an open, rational discourse. But how, technically, will the tools
> and media of discourse relate to those for composition (6a) and
> consent (6b)?
>
> Aside from (1) and (5), I am in the dark. Can we answer any of these
> questions in advance? Or can we only self-experiment? What do you
> think?
>
>
--
*Craig Burton*
Chief Technology Officer
Everyone Counts, Inc.
858.427.4671 1804 Garnet Avenue, #408
866.843.4668 San Diego, CA 92109
_www.everyone/counts/.com_ <http://www.everyonecounts.com/>