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
Don’t you fear the need for a rather complex mathematic equation? Somekind of integral over time?
It is an integral though it isn’t a truly continuous calculation but on the contrary has increments at each interval t. So nothing out of this world, and the underlying logic is simple enough for a formula such as the finish condition A = A* /(dxZ) to be explained in plain English (or French or Swedish) and therefore gain a form of legitimation. So I don’t see what you are worried about here echarp, or maybe you meant an issue with actually writing the code for it?
This is going to sound a bit like a late question, but does AD have a system using this algorithm online already? (all I could see now are classic phpBB forums)
Is t only there to generate a time buffer?Are there other secondary consequences you have considered? Good or bad.What do you think of a democracy using simple majority? Is it lessappropriate? Less legitimate?
Simple majority is more immediately legitimate but becomes inefficient very quickly as scale increases, therefore our intention to implement delegable proxy. I think this is a process of a similar nature, aiming at prioritizing issues and ensuring a balance bewteen efficiency and legitimacy. In my understanding, it is recognizing that some specialist issues may not gather much attention or interest but may be needed just as well (think of EU directives transposition in national laws), in which case to prevent abuse this constant d would make validation of such proposals with less involvment longer, but would at least avoid for a whole raft of not-so glamourous votes to simply become stuck.
For the purpose of checks and balances, and to solve the drawback of losing legitimacy by passing votes without a majority, such accepted proposals with less than a simple majority should be subjected to special scrutiny in a systematic manner, once voted, so that if a sufficient enough opposition to the proposal was raised it would have to be reconsidered. A sort of ratification if you will.
Besides this, I have one point I’d like to clarify. Continuous voting would be activated once delierations on a proposal are over and a final proposal is “frozen” for voting, just as in the case of a more classic formulation of vote, is that correct? Or do you envision a kind of range voting that could be coupled with deliberations and continuous voting to orient deliberations towards consensus?
Best regards,
Serge
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 03:58:57PM -0000, Serge wrote:
The code will be slightly complex, but it will be even more difficult to manage, because time will be an important part of the process.Don’t you fear the need for a rather complex mathematic equation? Somekind of integral over time?It is an integral though it isn’t a truly continuous calculation but onthe contrary has increments at each interval t. So nothing out of thisworld, and the underlying logic is simple enough for a formula such asthe finish condition A = A* /(dxZ) to be explained in plain English (orFrench or Swedish) and therefore gain a form of legitimation. So Idon’t see what you are worried about here echarp, or maybe you meant anissue with actually writing the code for it?
For example, if a recalculation fails, it will be difficult to simply relaunch it a few hours later.
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 08:40:56AM -0000, MG wrote:
I’m a engineer, we tend to use math for our work as any tool, CAD,wrench or pencil.But I’m not a math fan, never more than average in math classes.Still I see the benefits of these very simple formulas since they sonaturally improves the simple vote to something rather sophisticated,which is needed if we will succed with the idea of DD.I’m also an engineer, and I did manage to understand the Navier Stokes equations at one time :) But an equation with 5 elements, 2 of which are constants with no direct relation with reality, seems complex to understand.
(To me Condorcet is also complex, too much for a realistic usage)
Anyway, MG, can d be expressed not as a dividing constant, but as a threshold? Maybe a % of participants, or a number of accumulated (yes-no)?
=> (yes-no)0 + (yes-no)1 + (yes-no)… + (yes-no)t > d ?
In English, we could say that a proposal is accepted if its supporters constantly outnumbers its detractors by a certain margin.
This does not address the reversal of opinion which automatically “resets” the left part of the equation.
Is that reversal really important? Considering your orientation, is it not logical that a proposal on which the general opinion changes so radically takes more time to be approved or refused?
I totally agree.Is t only there to generate a time buffer?Are there other secondary consequences you have considered? Good or bad.What do you think of a democracy using simple majority? Is it lessappropriate? Less legitimate?Simple majority is more immediately legitimate but becomes inefficientvery quickly as scale increases, therefore our intention to implementdelegable proxy.
Besides this, I have one point I’d like to clarify. Continuous votingwould be activated once delierations on a proposal are over and a finalproposal is “frozen” for voting, just as in the case of a more classicformulation of vote, is that correct? Or do you envision a kind ofrange voting that could be coupled with deliberations and continuousvoting to orient deliberations towards consensus?
Who decides if and when a proposal is to be frozen? :)
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?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
For example, if a recalculation fails, it will be difficult to simply
relaunch it a few hours later.
-Why? It is only to use the number of yes/no votes casted on the original time for summation and redo the division. >(To me Condorcet is also complex, too much for a realistic usage)
-To me too.
Anyway, MG, can d be expressed not as a dividing constant, but as a
threshold? Maybe a % of participants, or a number of accumulated (yes-no)?
-Well, if 60% have voted yes, the formulas A* = M* + A and A = A* /(dxZ) could be expressed: A=(M* + A(index:t-1=former A)) / dxZ
Which is the same as :the percentage of all yes votes (or no votes if negative) out of all, divided by a small number f.i. 7 or a large f.i.
It is quite simple to explain to everyone on the street that if we then repeat this and no more votes are comming in, after 7 (or 356) times of adding another 1/7 (or 1/356) part, the vote is over because then we have 7/7 (or 356/356) =1
=> (yes-no)0 + (yes-no)1 + (yes-no)… + (yes-no)t > d ?
In English, we could say that a proposal is accepted if its supporters constantly outnumbers its detractors by a certain margin.
-But then there need to be a certain margin, and this migth never occur.
This does not address the reversal of opinion which automatically
“resets” the left part of the equation.
Is that reversal really important? Considering your orientation, is it not logical that a proposal on which the general opinion changes so radically takes more time to be approved or refused?
-Yes it is important, because if there is a majority switch, those
voted on the first side might want to consider their first vote (which
can be cahnged ofcourse, or start to drive opinion again, which takes
time.
In this way there is little risk that those voting in the beginning
with well built arguments will miss if there comes in arbitary
arguments of other unfair opinions.
One could also thing of a function where you would be able to filter on
majority switches due to this.
Who decides if and when a proposal is to be frozen? :)
-Exactly, this is a problem so AD want to keep open the possibility to put up your own proposals without limits.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
Participants can vote and revote at any time, the last one being the valid one. If you relaunch the calculation 10 hours later, you will have to find out the last votes of all participants at the time of the original calculation.For example, if a recalculation fails, it will be difficult to simplyrelaunch it a few hours later.Why? It is only to use the number of yes/no votes casted on theoriginal time for summation and redo the division.
This is not simple SQL, it is not a simple recalculation.
And it has to be done for all proposals.
A proposal would be accepted if:Anyway, MG, can d be expressed not as a dividing constant, but as athreshold? Maybe a % of participants, or a number of accumulated(yes-no)?Well, if 60% have voted yes, the formulas A* = M* + A and A = A*/(dxZ) could be expressed:A=(M* + A(index:t-1=former A)) / dxZ
Or, without division or multiplication:
A=M* + A(index:t-1=former A) and A > d’ ?
d’ a margin or threshold
Which is the same as :the percentage of all yes votes (or no votes ifnegative) out of all, divided by a small number f.i. 7 or a large f.i.356., making it 1/7 of the total or 1/356 of the total percentage.It is quite simple to explain to everyone on the street that if we thenrepeat this and no more votes are comming in, after 7 (or 356) times ofadding another 1/7 (or 1/356) part, the vote is over because then wehave 7/7 (or 356/356) =1
The accumulation of a difference over time did leave me puzzled. And I’m not sure it is that easy to explain to the layman.
=> (yes-no)0 + (yes-no)1 + (yes-no)… + (yes-no)t > d ?
The sum of all (yes-no) votes over days.
Is this equation an equivalent representation of yours?
_t \ / (yes-no) > d ’-0Is that “reset” a required part of your system?This does not address the reversal of opinion which automatically"resets" the left part of the equation.Is that reversal really important? Considering your orientation, is itnot logical that a proposal on which the general opinion changes soradically takes more time to be approved or refused?Yes it is important, because if there is a majority switch, thosevoted on the first side might want to consider their first vote (whichcan be cahnged ofcourse, or start to drive opinion again, which takestime.In this way there is little risk that those voting in the beginningwith well built arguments will miss if there comes in arbitaryarguments of other unfair opinions.
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?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Why? It is only to use the number of yes/no votes casted on theoriginal time for summation and redo the division.
Participants can vote and revote at any time, the last one being thevalid one. If you relaunch the calculation 10 hours later, you will have
This is not simple SQL, it is not a simple recalculation. And it has to be done for all proposals.
-Well, if the system goes down so no calculation can be made, the
possibility to vote should also go down?
But if not, it is only reuse the day before value and send out a
message to re-vote.
But you could also wait to next day and use the latest ballots from all
if they are existent.
(If so, there could be a rule that the vote is proplonged with the time
the sytem has been down.)
The same could happen to any internet based voting system, that it
breaks down.
-Sorry for my writing about 60%, it should only be: The formulas A* = M* + A and A = A* /(dxZ) could be expressed: A=(M* + A(index:t-1=former A)) / dxZWell, if 60% have voted yes, the formulas A* = M* + A and A = A*/(dxZ) could be expressed:A=(M* + A(index:t-1=former A)) / dxZ
A proposal would be accepted if:
A=(M* + A(index:t-1=former A)) / Z and A > d ? d a fraction of the total population
Or, without division or multiplication:
A=M* + A(index:t-1=former A) and A > d’ ?
d’ a margin or threshold
-Maybe…I’m not a matemathician…what is your angle?
The accumulation of a difference over time did leave me puzzled. And I’m
not sure it is that easy to explain to the layman.
-The only complex part as I see it, is how thing are affected in the case thats normal; not all are voting yes, but only say 54%. In this case the accumulation to A* will go slower. The day when there is exactly 54% yes-votes and 46% no, the addition to A will be exactly 54% of the addition if we had 100% yes votes, meaning a slower progress.
The sum of all (yes-no) votes over days.
Is this equation an equivalent representation of yours?
_t \ / (yes-no) > d ’-0-I think so yes..
Yes it is important, because if there is a majority switch, thosevoted on the first side might want to consider their first vote (whichcan be cahnged ofcourse, or start to drive opinion again, which takestime.In this way there is little risk that those voting in the beginningwith well built arguments will miss if there comes in arbitaryarguments of other unfair opinions.
Is that “reset” a required part of your system?
-Sorry for another error of mine…
It’s the other way around, the accumulated support should be set to
zero in order to avoid that the voting time streches out too much just
because there is a switch of majority..
It can be díscussed if this resetting is needed but for practical
reasons we think it’s a good feature.
The argument for it is that the issue is well known by the voters and
majority switches might happen many times in even issues, 49/51 to
51/49 etc. This might lead to very long voting times thus impractical.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
Hey,
About recalculations, couldn’t a duplication step be included ahead of the counting? This would ensure a snapshot of the voting position remains available for reference should a malfunction / delay occur.
About formulas and making d and the process of accumulation over time more intellegible, if I get this right, the basic logic is that for proposals with a high proportion of the population voting and agreeing, a proposal can be passed fairly quickly. Equally, if not many people are voting or agreeing, then a proposal will drag on.
Explaining this in layman’s terms therefore seems pretty straightforward. You could define d=7 as corresponding to a period of one week for ratification of a vote if 100% of the population votes in favour. Accordingly, as the proportion of participation / support drops, the time for ratification increases in proportion, which ensures no loonie proposal can be passed discreetly and quickly without proper participation and scrutiny. That would probably make it more understandable than calling it a democratic constant.
The argument for it is that the issue is well known by the voters andmajority switches might happen many times in even issues, 49/51 to51/49 etc. This might lead to very long voting times thus impractical.
In regards to close calls without a clear majority, wouldn’t it actually make sense for these to drag on until a proposal is satisfactory enough for a larger support to gather and tip the balance?
Regards,
Serge
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
+0
Echarp, Serge:
Don’t you fear the need for a rather complex mathematic equation? Some
kind of integral over time?
-I’m a engineer, we tend to use math for our work as any tool, CAD,
wrench or pencil.
But I’m not a math fan, never more than average in math classes.
Still I see the benefits of these very simple formulas since they so
naturally improves the simple vote to something rather sophisticated,
which is needed if we will succed with the idea of DD.
This is going to sound a bit like a late question, but does AD have a
system using this algorithm online already? (all I could see now are classic phpBB forums)
-We have used in manually before the PHPbb-time. (Now we just have
simple majority over one month of voting period.)
And we have tested a system where the algo was implemented.
Sorry to say, the programmer got a job and felt tired..He aslo needed
feed back from other non existent programmers.
Currently we try to get the programming going by anyone interested.
What do you think of a democracy using simple majority? Is it lessappropriate? Less legitimate?
Serge:-Simple majority is more immediately legitimate but becomes inefficientvery quickly as scale increases, therefore our intention to implement delegable proxy. I think this is a process of a similar nature, aiming at prioritizing issues and ensuring a balance bewteen efficiency and legitimacy. In my understanding, it is recognizing that some specialist
issues may not gather much attention or interest but may be needed just
as well (think of EU directives transposition in national laws), in which case to prevent abuse this constant d would make validation of such proposals with less involvment longer, but would at least avoid for a whole raft of not-so glamourous votes to simply become stuck.
For the purpose of checks and balances, and to solve the drawback of losing legitimacy by passing votes without a majority, such accepted proposals with less than a simple majority should be subjected to special scrutiny in a systematic manner, once voted, so that if a sufficient enough opposition to the proposal was raised it would have to be reconsidered. A sort of ratification if you will.
-Couldn’t have put it better myself!!
Besides this, I have one point I’d like to clarify. Continuous voting
would be activated once delierations on a proposal are over and a final
proposal is “frozen” for voting, just as in the case of a more classic formulation of vote, is that correct? Or do you envision a kind of range voting that could be coupled with deliberations and continuous voting to orient deliberations towards consensus?
-The most effective way once the system in place for governmental use
is to run it on relativley “ready” proposals.
This will probably be the only way of getting the proposals voted upon
in reasonable volumes.
So we envison use of document evolution, where a wiki could be used for
democratic version handling.
When more or less a consensus is reached about a proposal worked out by
a number of engaged citizens, the document is turned into a proposal to
vote for.
In this way time is won since there are much debate already written,
possible to read and comment by all voters not been engaded before.
But also the plain and sinple proposal from the little man should have
a chance.
So it will be up to the oroginator of a proposal to decide whether he
wants to engage more than himself in the work of writing good
proposals.
Some will, some not, and evolution will make all proposals better and
better until they finally can be voted upon within a reasonable amount
of days.
(If you feel frustrated because of slow progress of your vote, you
either try to raise more opinion, or rewrite you proposal so it can
attract more.)
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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