Delegable Proxy Election: Difference between revisions

Line 9:

REGISTRATION OF PROXIES. Prior to an election, persons willing to serve as proxies register. By registration, they agree to accept proxy assignments from the public. As part of this registration, they provide a means for the public to identify and communicate with them.

PLATFORMS AND PLEDGES. Proxies may publish ~~platorms~~ or promises to vote a certain way in the election, but such promises, if made, may not be considered binding beyond the first college ballot, which may have a supermajority requirement to win. Other proxies may choose not to publish a platform, but to run solely based on personal reputation or relationships.

PLATFORMS AND PLEDGES. Proxies may publish platforms or promises to vote a certain way in the election, but such promises, if made, may not be considered binding beyond the first college ballot, which may have a supermajority requirement to win. Other proxies may choose not to publish a platform, but to run solely based on personal reputation or relationships.

SECRET ASSIGNMENT OF PROXIES. By secret ballot, in a process which ensures that each voter may assign his or her proxy to one and only one person, voters choose and register their proxies. Registered proxies may not participate in this secret ballot.

Line 31:

FILLING OUT THE COLLEGE. Various processes might be used to fill out the allotment of N members of the college; perhaps some reassignment of proxies would be allowed at this point, and additional members determined from that. Alternatively, the remaining member(s) might be chosen by lot from the highest qualified members remaining.

CAUSE AND EFFECT OF LOOPS. Most loops will be moot for the purposes of determining qualification. Some have suggested that loops be prohibited; however, it would be expected that a tip proxy, the highest-rank member of a proxy tree, would commonly name a proxy within the tree. Indeed, the rules may require the naming of a proxy by all electors. Thus loops would be normal. However, such a loop, where a tip proxy names someone of lower rank as a second, does not create a tie in the determination of qualifying votes. The rules might indeed permit the proxy named by the tip proxy to serve as a qualified member of the college in the absence of the tip proxy. If loops are not permitted, then tip proxies will not name a proxy at all, or they would be forced to name a proxy whom they might not trust. Neither of these conditions is ~~desireable~~.

CAUSE AND EFFECT OF LOOPS. Most loops will be moot for the purposes of determining qualification. Some have suggested that loops be prohibited; however, it would be expected that a tip proxy, the highest-rank member of a proxy tree, would commonly name a proxy within the tree. Indeed, the rules may require the naming of a proxy by all electors. Thus loops would be normal. However, such a loop, where a tip proxy names someone of lower rank as a second, does not create a tie in the determination of qualifying votes. The rules might indeed permit the proxy named by the tip proxy to serve as a qualified member of the college in the absence of the tip proxy. If loops are not permitted, then tip proxies will not name a proxy at all, or they would be forced to name a proxy whom they might not trust. Neither of these conditions is desirable.

PROXY REASSIGNMENTS, EFFECT ON QUALIFICATION. Proxy reassignments during a session of the college, while permitted for the purpose of voting, would cause uncertainty in qualified membership in the college; because qualification exists only for the purpose of facilitating efficient meeting process, and does not reduce the voting rights of individual members, qualified or otherwise, and because it is expected that normal meeting size will be such as to create substantial diversity within the college, it may be the rule that qualification remains unchanged during a session. Any

Line 41: