Archive for ‘Propuneri’

August 10, 2012

Vote Accounting. Method and Importance of Quorum/Threshold

We think that any community that adheres to a voting system for decision taking has to abide to the following principles:

  1. Maintain awareness on the technical limitations of the chosen voting system.
  2. Use the same voting system for all decisions. (By instantiating every time the best current version of the voting system)
  3. The voting system has to remain open to improvement and upgrade. (Improvement in the sense of refinement and not in the sense of gross revision of the vote accounting practices. Therefore we would expect that each improvement to lead to a lesser change in the way the votes are accounted and with lower tolerance for meeting the agreed-upon principles than the previous improvements)
  4. All the constants of the voting instance (voting schedule, nomination and minimal information on every stakeholder, quorum, total number of community members with voting power) have to be published in advance and each voting member has to sign that he/she knows them before voting.
  5. Compose and enact laws that institute the voting system and ability to improve/upgrade the system without impeding decisions that required previous instantiating.
  6. Transparency and verifiability  of vote accounting. (We already recommended non-anonymous voting)

We also have to be aware that not voting has also to remain a right of the community member for any good voting system. Otherwise we would not remain true to the first principle. A voting system has to account the number of non-voting members with voting rights for feed-back (for principle 3) and quorum purposes.

Voting inside any system means in fact two votes: first vote (the invisible vote) is the vote of confidence and usefulness and desirability of the current voting system instance (with the acceptance of data correctness – principle 4). Second vote is the visible vote in favor of some or none of the stakeholders (the voter may just invalidate his vote by not respecting some procedures). Not voting in a voting instance is in fact just one vote: the member forfeits his right to the second vote on grounds of:

  • lack of usefulness of the decision that constitutes the outcome of the voting instance or in the subsequent implementation of that decision
  • lack of trust in the voting system or in that specific instance of the voting system (including in vote accounting)
  • vested interest in the current instance not attaining the published quorum

Not voting inside a proposed system has often times a greater importance than voting. Any democratic community has to carefully account for „the invisible vote” in order to lessen the technical limitations of the voting system and continue upgrading it.

Members with voting power in a community should not be discriminating against. They do have the same rights in a voting instance as any of the members that exercised their vote in that same instance. Their apparent lack of vote is in fact a powerful exercise of their rights to not be accounted in a system that did not find importance and legitimacy in their opinion.

The total number of members with voting power and the quorum has to be announced before the start of a voting instance. The number of members with voting power that did not vote has to be accounted by rounding up the number of those that we can account in a verifiable manner with the tolerance for those that may exist but impossible/very hard to verify.

As a conclusion: every instance of decision taken through vote should have a quorum (sometimes 50% +1, sometimes 30% – depending on the importance of the decision) to establish legitimacy and literacy of the votes captured by that instance of the voting system.

These days there is a voting instance in Romania (for a nation-wide referendum) where some authorities propose not taking into account some members with voting rights on the grounds that they live outside the country. Authorities in Romania failed to publish the total number of citizens that have to voting right and the number that has to be met for quorum BEFORE the start of the voting instance (principle 4). They try to change the voting system in  an instance precedent to the upgrade (against principle 3) and with major quorum implications (against principle 5).  For the purposes of this article, we will stop here, but this instance of voting in Romania has not respected any of the above-mentioned principles and there are many other „democratic” states that still do not in most or all of their voting instances or even voting systems.

Anunțuri
Iulie 29, 2012

Instant Meritocracy and Rightful Information Solution

This is a proposal pertinent to any voting instance. It solves the problem of a meritocratic calculation of the individual vote, the misinformation by the mass media and the unequal awareness of the stakes involved in any voting decision.

We propose that every vote to be scored by a simple calculation of its merits. That means every person that votes to have his/her vote accounted for, but divided by the results of a simple quiz.

The quiz should have a number of questions equal to the number of the main stakeholders of that election +1. The last question on any quiz should be about the limitation of the actual system and on the methods used for vote accounting. Every stakeholder should present all questions that will be asked and their correct answer and their method of grading for that question. Every question should have equal scoring weight.

Now for an instant example: In a electoral space there are 3 candidates, that means 3 stakeholders. Each candidate publicizes a set of questions and their correct answer (from their point of view). The quiz for this voting instance will consist of 4 questions: 3 questions proposed from each candidate plus an additional question related to the methods employed at the election instance. The quiz with all correct answers will have a grade of 1 (100%). Any question that will be answered brings 25% to the weight of the vote. So the voter that provides no right answer will have no say (his vote will be accounted as 0% of a normal vote).

The merits of this system is that all potential voters will be informed by all the candidates in an equal and transparent manner. There can be few ways for the mass media to misinform. The voter that studies and keeps himself better informed will have a higher chance to change something by instantly earning that merit.

Februarie 11, 2012

ACTA. Dovada de reprezentare.

Dupa cum e moda acum, vom analiza in urmatoarele subiectul ACTA. Vom urmari sa ne dam seama unde este problema la nivel de principiu.

Fara doar si poate semnarea ACTA fara o dezbatere publica este o greseala. Este o greseala repetabila si ar fi bine sa ne dumirim de ce este repetabila si cum putem face sa nu mai fie.

Dupa parerea noastra este repetabila pentru ca documentele si contractele internationale sunt semnate de reprezentanti care de fapt nu reprezinta dorinta celor reprezentati. Acest lucru ar putea inceta odata cu instituirea unui sistem de dovedire a reprezentarii.

In ce ar consta acest sistem si ce protocoale ar necesita:

  • orice lege, contract, sau reprezentant politic sau executiv ar trebui sa aiba o perioada de valabilitate de o singura zi calendaristica.
  • innoirea mandatului sau prelungirea contractului ar trebui sa fie optionale si sa depinda de dorinta electoratului
  • orice lege, contract sau reprezentant executiv (reprezentanti politici nu ar trebui sa mai existe intr-o democratie pura) nou/a ar trebui propuse si documentate (impreuna cu restrictiile legale cauzate – vom trata acest subiect intr-un articol viitor) cu cel putin o saptamana inainte de momentul votarii. Fiecare reprezentant ar trebui sa poata prezenta o chitanta de trimitere a informatiei pentru fiecare persoana cu drept de vot (sau pentru o vasta majoritate)
  • votarea sa poata fi repetitiva si automatizata de catre fiecare votant. De ex la interval de o zi aplicatia de votare aunui votant sa poata prezenta: ce legi sustine astazi, ce persoane executive sustine si orice schimbari fata de ziua de ieri (pentru minimizarea de trafic informatic)
  • dupa momentul votarii sau in timpul votului continuu (automatizarea zilnica a votului), orice reprezentant executiv are datoria de a publica o chitanta de votare si a putea face dovada manierei de vot pentru fiecare persoana care a votat (in nume propriu)

Astfel cei care au semnat in numele romanilor pentru ACTA ar fi usor de dovedit ca nu reprezinta acest neam. In plus, daca se implementeaza institutia dovezii de reprezentare:

  • Daca exista persoane in aparatul de stat care nu mai sunt agreate de peste 50% din electoratul activ (cel care voteaza), aceste persoane vor fi automat demise.
  • Daca un votant nu voteaza zilnic aderenta la Constitutia Romaniei, atunci se poate considera ca nu este cetatean roman si statul nu mai are obligatii catre el in perioada cat nu este cetatean.
  • In aplicatia de vot a fiecarui votant ar trebui sa existe in clar toate legile, contractele, reprezentatii executivi pe care acel cetatean le doreste active, data la care fiecare i-a fost prezentata (chitanta de informare), data la care a votat prima data (chitanta de vot)
  • Orice reprezentant ar avea dovada ca intr-adevar reprezinta pe cei reprezentati in fiecare actiune de anvergura pe care o intreprinde
  • Daca exista peste 50% votanti care nu agreeaza un tratat international la care statul este semnatar, statul are datoria de a iesi imediat din acel tratat sau contract. (Aviz: aderarea la UE, tratatul ACTA, etc.)
Ianuarie 17, 2012

Planul politic

Nepartidul propune urmatorul program politic si de voluntariat pentru urmatoarea perioada:

  1. Re-votarea legilor: fiecare lege votata in Parlament sa fie re-votata de catre membrii retelei de incredere. Pentru asta va fi nevoie de o infrastructura informatica pentru crearea retelei de incredere intai.
  2. Inceperea unei guvernari paralele: incepand cu constitutia si legile organice ar trebui sa fie re-definite toate cuvintele si re-compuse toate legile dupa principii semantice solide. Asta se poate face sub forma de joc electronic in reteaua de incredere.
Decembrie 11, 2011

En: Autocracy and the Machine-Controlled Behavior

Here is a new model for a future society:

  • Small groups of people of 1 or more members that form each an independent nation. Practically each family or group of close friends may be nation members.
  • Each nation to be led by a leader, head of family, person of trust
  • Each person of trust to:
    • Compose a list of liberties and duties that his nation adheres to. (Use a policy-building application for that)
    • Publish this list on the Cloud and on a Personal Assistant machine of each nation member
    • Ensure that each nation member has a behavior as described on his machine (mobile phone, application player)

Practically each person will determine in time an exact set of rules for his behavior: from daily fitness program to the way to conduct himself with others in the most diverse of situations. The Personal Assistant machine acts as a reminder of what to do when. It will, in time, be able to determine the situations when explicit rules apply. Eg: If a person reveals to us an information under condition of confidentiality, the machine will remind you abut that before you try to share it. If you decide to share it, your public trust level should be decreased. In the Cloud we should be able to know all public policies of a group. And compare with the public policies of our own group to see what are the compatibilities.

Some advantages:

  • Clearer relationships and mutual understanding
  • Anyone would be able to „import” and „export” policies, fitness schedule, habit forming behavior
  • Easiness of evolution to create policies for groups of nations or families
  • Easiness of presentation and shortest path to implementation of any new habit. (The personal assistant machine will publish to the Cloud and import from the Cloud in a format that will explain the new habit in 2 forms: a human-readable format and a machine-readable format (algorithm, schedule, calculation formulae))
  • Reduces the need for police. Each group leader or person of trust will police himself and his group/nation. Otherwise the public trust of the nation gets degraded by automatic announcement of lack of auto-police.
Etichete:
Noiembrie 27, 2011

Informare independentă

Orice votant ar trebui sa isi faca datoria de a se informa in detaliu si independent de sursele de opinie de masa. Practic ar trebui sa aiba posibilitatea de a obtine informatiile despre faptele in sine si apoi a-si forma o opine si singur.

Multimea tuturor vontantilor la nivel local sau national ar trebui sa creeze infrastructura potrivita pentru a putea sa contribuie financiar pentru o informare verificabila si independenta de canalele neindependente. Altfel nu vor putea sa aiba pretentia la o informare dezinteresata sau obiectiva.

Practic e normal sa nu putem avea incredere in surse de informare care nu sunt platite pentru calitatea si obiectivitatea informarii ci pentru reclamele strecurate in continut in mod legitim sau nu. Am dori sa stabilim algoritmi si protocoale pentru a obtine publicarea de informatii cat mai aproape de sursa factuala. Acesta este o problema care trebuie rezolvata imediat dupa implementarea unei retele de incredere. Orice votant care nu contribuie la incurajarea informarii independente este de mai putina incredere decat unul care face aceasta. Acest factor ar trebui inclus in formula de calcul al puterii de vot.

Noiembrie 24, 2011

En: TN: Property Adding Algorithm

This is the new node property adding algorithm for trust networks:

  1. The property is proposed to your reverse-trust tree (graph)
  2. Property awaits approval by x nodes
  3. Authenticating nodes have to have the proposed property already authenticated and public for themselves
  4. If not authenticated in d days, the user is alerted
  5. When property is authenticated by x nodes without cyclic paths, property may be presented as authenticated with trust weight being the sum of trust-domain diversity factored with the reverse-trust weights of the authenticating nodes (exact formula to be voted on later)
  6. The list of nodes that authenticated each property has to remain as public as the property itself

Possible properties that have to be added, authenticated for any voter:

  • previous user id (in case of recovering identity)
  • Name
  • Age
  • Electoral college (only in an impure democracy)
  • job, expert domain
Noiembrie 24, 2011

En: Trust Domains

The real-world trust network is a collection of graphs with the same nodes liked by weighted double-directed edges. The number of graphs is a finite natural number and can be associated with the sum between the common sense set cardinality and the cardinality of the expert domains. We already compiled a set of domains of expertise with cardinality 1376. For practical reasons we will use only 1-10 types of trust (domains of trust) out of these possible domains. We may try to mix onto the traceable trust network most of the trust domains (most of the inbound edges of each node to be in different trust domains)

Common-sense trust weight is imparted in habitual environments:

  • family
  • school, peers
  • sports, peers
  • job, peers
  • church
  • low-level tests
  • local competitions
Expert-domain trust weight is imparted in expert environments:
  • Academic
  • Performance Sports
  • Expert tests
  • Professional
  • Competitions at national or international levels

Each imparts a somewhat different type of trust. We can use each for knitting a more reliable trust net of a voting person.

Noiembrie 24, 2011

En: Trust Network

Given a densely-connected, double and weighted-directed, graph A, a natural number x>1, a natural number t > (the minimum weight of any edge of A), we will consider a subgraph B with the following properties:

  • contains all nodes in A
  • only one direction of any edge is part of B
  • all these edges have a weight equal or greater than t
  • there is no cycling in any direction
  • each node has at least x incoming edges
  • each node has at most x outgoing edges

We may assimilate the following:

  • A: the real-world trust network
  • B: the traceable trust network
  • x: the trust breadth
  • t: the trust level

Interesting properties:

  • Ability to uniquely determine a node where a breach of trust happens
  • Resistance to catastrophic failure and abstraction of compromised nodes – demonstrated here

To do:

  • Determine the optimal values of x and t
  • Solve for exceptions (sparsely-connected graph)
Noiembrie 24, 2011

Strategia nepartidului României

Un algoritm sumar:

  1. Cat timp suntem doar un site, fara reprezentare politica in Parlament sau Presedentie:
    1. Inovam si colectionam solutii la problemele neamului romanesc si al aparatului de stat*
    2. Alcatuim si cizelam un algoritm meritocratic pentru trierea/ierarhizarea de probleme si solutii*
    3. Supunem dezbaterii publice solutiile de la punctul 1.1 si le triem/ierarhizam conform algoritmului meritocratic*
    4. Editam si propunem documente legale care sa includa solutiile gasite (ex: Constitutia Romaniei cu democratie directa, meritocratica; legea electorala modificata)
    5. Propagam alfabetizarea politica a maselor prin dezbatere pe probleme si solutii
    6. Educam reprezentantii politici in a respecta vointa meritocratica
    7. Programam aplicatii software pentru dialogul direct intre popor si reprezentanti
  2. Daca ajungem sa avem reprezentare in Parlament, dar nu avem Presedentia (deci nu putem declansa Referendum-ul pentru Marea Schimbare)
    1. Continuam pasii 1.1-1.7
    2. Reprezentantii nostri in Parlament vor vota conform dorintei meritocratice din colegiul alegator fiecare lege sau pachet astfel:
      1. Vor publica legea pe site-ul lor cu cel putin 3 zile in avans fata de votare
      2. Vor scrie punctul lor de vedere care va include:
        1. identificarea problemei rezolvate de acea lege
        2. o prima proiectie de punctaj meritocratic (calculat dupa istoria de vot a acelui colegiu alegator)
        3. identificarea problemelor create de acea lege sau pachet
      3. vor lasa legea si problema sa fie dezbatuta de publicul colegiului si votata in sondaj meritocratic
      4. la cateva minute inainte de vot, vor lua cunostinta de punctajul final meritocratic pro sau contra legii
      5. vor vota in acord cu punctajul final
      6. daca legea nu va fi publicata la timp sau vor fi obstacole neprevazute, reprezentatntul se va abtine de la vot
      7. daca nu vor respecta punctele 2.2.1-2.2.6, reprezentatntul nu mai poate reprezenta nepartidul si nici votantii care i-au acordat votul. va fi demis ex oficio si alt reprezentant ales de catre colegiul electoral in cauza
  3. Daca, cu ajutorul lui Dumnezeu, ajungem sa putem declansa Marea Schimbare:
    1. Continuam pasii 1.1-1.7
    2. Pe durata existentei Parlamentului, continuam pasii 2.2.1-2.2.7
    3. Declansam Referendum pentru Marea Schimbare
    4. Modificam Constitutia si trecem la Democratie Pura bazata pe Meritocratie in toata tara
    5. Presenintele va ramane garant al Democratiei Pure, Meritocratice si va respecta sondajul meritocratic asupra oricarei actiuni ale oficiului sau, la fel ca orice reprezentant nepartidul in Parlament
  4. Dupa Marea Schimbare:
    1. Continuam pasii 1.1-1.5 (1.6-1.7 nu vor mai fi de actualitate, in locul lor vom programa aplicatii de interfata intre vointa meritocratica politica si orice alta entitate extanta, ex: presedinte, executiv)

* Un pas care este perpetuu, oarecum disjunct de un algoritm secvential

Observatie: Punctul 2 cu subpunctele sale sunt de fapt o implementare locala, pe colegiul respectiv, pe reprezentatul respectiv, al dezideratului general de Democratie Pura, Meritocratica

%d blogeri au apreciat asta: