[Start] scalability and openness to new ideas

[Michael Allan]

Darwin:
>>>> Rejecting new concepts because of a low credibility score is an ad
>>>> hominem.

Ed:
>>> That depends on your views on meritocracy and/or reputocracy, and
>>> their place in democracy.

Darwin:
>> Democracy is about ideas, not people's reputations.

Scott:
> I agree that this is a nice ideal (reputations don't matter), but I don't 
> think it scales in practice.

Gents, I think it can scale.  I know of one solution:

  http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/theory.xht#medium

  (See in particular around Figure 4, and the contrast with mass
   voting.)

As Joe average voter, I have two ways to express my new ideas:

  a) Vote for a drafter near the periphery of the cascade (where she
     probably has only a dozen votes or so) and use my own vote as
     leverage to request changes from her.  "I'll vote for you, but
     please make this change to your version of the document: ..."

  b) Become a delegate and a drafter myself.  I draft my own variation
     of the policy, and solicit votes for it.  Then I repeat step (a),
     but this time I have heavier leverage, allowing me to go a little
     deeper in the cascade, and closer to the consensus - closer to
     action.
     
In a sense, the votes I gain in (b) are like the votes of a
"reputation" system.  Two differences:

  i) The votes apply only in the context of a single norm - the
     particular law, plan or policy on which we are all voting.  In
     other votes (for other issues) I'm still Joe average voter.

 ii) Although some people may be voting confidence in me (personally),
     most of them are probably only voting for my ideas.  They're
     hoping I'll use their votes as leverage, and push the ideas
     closer to action.

So the voting system can scale, and there's no need to sacrifice the
ideals of democracy.

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, 647-436-4521
http://zelea.com/