Delegable proxy: Difference between revisions

In a proxy system, each member of the electorate is allowed to delegate his right to vote directly on proposals to another person. The term "proxy" can refer can refer both to the delegation of voting rights itself and to the person chosen to exercise them.<ref>RONR (10th ed.) p. 414.</ref> A proxy only represents those individual members who chose him as proxy. This distinguishes it from a typical representative system, in which groups of members pool their votes to elect a representative to represent both the winning faction and the dissenting members of the group. The use of a proxy is designed to help minimize [[participation bias]] problems associated with direct democracy<ref>{{cite web|url=http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2007-August/020651.html|title=Asset Voting can be a proxy system|author=Lomax, Abd|date=2007-08-15|publisherwebsite=ElectionmethodsElection-methods mailing list archives|accessdate=2008-02-13}}</ref> which result from some members having insufficient time or information to make an informed decision.<ref name=Green-Armytage/>

Generally, proxy systems also allow members to retain the right to revoke their proxy at any time. For instance, Boeing's proxy statement allows shareholders to revoke their proxy on short notice by notifying the Secretary by mail or by appearing at the meeting and delivering a notice to that effect to an inspector of elections.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/financial/finreports/annual/96proxy/general.htm|title=1996 Proxy Statement|publisher=Boeing Corporation|accessdate=2008-02-13}}</ref> Abd Lomax notes that proxy revocation may be an expedient course of action if a member frequently disagrees with his proxy or loses trust in him,<ref name=FAQ/> and suggests that the delay in doing so should only be limited to whatever unavoidable latency is involved in executing the revocation.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://listas.apesol.org/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2007-March/020005.html|title=Trees by Proxy (cont'd)|date=2007-03-24|accessdate=2008-02-13}}</ref> Systems in which the proxy cannot be revoked until after a certain time period have been referred to by R. Marsh as "static recoverable proxy."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://marsh.orcon.net.nz/stumpy/drp.htm|title=Dynamic Recoverable Proxy|author=Marsh, R.|accessdate=2008-02-13}}</ref> Bryan Ford suggests having election days which would be more frequent than typically seen under current systems.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20050903035026/http://www.indrep.org/|title=Individual Representation: Real Choice for Voters, Democratic Currency for Activists|author=Ford, Bryan|date=November 2004-11}}</ref>

Issue independence would allow members to pick different proxies to handle different issues.<ref name=Green-Armytage>{{cite web|url=http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/vm/proxy.htm|title=Direct Democracy by Delegable Proxy|author=James Green-Armytage|accessdate=2008-01-29}}</ref> One might wish to select an expert on a particular subject matter to make decisions in that realm.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wiki.uniteddiversity.com/gdr|title=Global Democratic Revolution|accessdate=2008-02-09|publisher=UnitedDiversity}}</ref> For instance, one might select Greenpeace to vote on environmental issues and the Democratic Party to vote on social issues. A CommunityWiki page recommends that users subscribe to an issue categorization service of their choice that would facilitate delegating votes on different topics to different proxies.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.communitywiki.org/en/CategorizationOfVotes|title=CategorizationOfVotes|publisher=CommunityWiki|accessdate=2008-02-16}} </ref> Nathan Larson proposes that this could be done by ranking the proxies and making arrangements with the proxies to only vote on certain issues. Thus, if Greenpeace is ranked first, and a non-environment-related issue comes up, then Greenpeace will abstain from voting that proxy, and it will pass to the second-choice proxy.<ref>{{cite paper|author=Larson, Nathan|title=Issue Independence in Delegable Proxy Systems|date=2007-09-19|accessdate=2008-02-13}}</ref>

Abd Lomax describes DP as a relatively simple system in which no votes are wasted and which follows the norm in corporate governance in which voting power varies with the number of proxies held. [[Proportional representation]], on the other hand, attempts to create a peer assembly in which each representative has equal voting power. Lomax sums up the wasted vote situation as being "severe in [[Single-member_district|single-winner district representation]], greatly ameliorated with multi-winner PR single-stage election methods, almost entirely eliminated with [[Asset Voting]] (which is really a multi-stage election method, it does not produce complete results solely from the votes cast), and totally eliminated with proxy or delegable proxy." Other advantages of DP include that it allows proxy selection on a small scale, where the voters can personally know the proxies, while collecting representation on a much larger scale.<ref>{{cite web|author=Lomax, Abd ul-Rahman|url=http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2005-October/017192.html|title=STV with which quota?|publisher=Election Methods|accessdate=2008-02-13}}</ref> Lomax notes that in a [[proportional representation]] system, "a member of a party who would have chosen someone other than the winner of party primaries is *still* left without a representative."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.beyondpolitics.org/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=WhyIsItNeeded|title=WhyIsItNeeded|publisher=BeyondPolitics|accessdate=2008-02-09}}</ref>