Just dropping in here - as this subject is close to my heart. I'm working away busily but more on rhetoric - human centred translations and pilots than pure theory - for instance <a href="http://www.parliamentofthings.net">http://www.parliamentofthings.net</a> - so give me some latitude if I am not up on the subtleties of your discussion :)<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On 19 April 2012 11:55, Michael Allan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mike@zelea.com">mike@zelea.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im"><br></div>There are problems with a cycle:<br>
<br>
a) Only end-candidates can cycle. If folks up in the tree form a<br>
cycle, they drop to the ground like ripe fruit. :-)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Can you elaborate on this?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
b) Cycles are hard to maintain. If one person (G) shifts his vote,<br>
then the whole cycle is broken. Someone else has to correct it<br>
(F to H).<br>
<br>
c) Cycles are likely to be poorly visualized (as you note) because<br>
we don't use them much.<br>
<br>
<br>
(V)---(C) (0)---(7)<br>
/ \ (W) / \ (0)<br>
(H) (D) / (7) (7) / |<br>
| | / | | / | vote flow<br>
(G) (E) (7) (7) V<br>
\ / \ /<br>
(F) (7)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">A possible solution is to give the group an email address (P), then<br>
vote for the group:<br>
<br>
<br>
(V) (W) (0) (0)<br>
| | | |<br>
| | | |<br>
(C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (1) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0)<br>
\ \ | / / / \ \ | / / /<br>
\ \ | / / / \ \ | / / /<br>
\ \|/ / / \ \|/ / /<br>
+-+ | +-+---+ +-+ | +-+---+<br>
\|/ \|/<br>
(P) (8)<br>
<br>
<br>
This is almost the same, but with none of the disadvantages. All we'd<br>
need is a small change in the count engine to allow non-eligible<br>
voters (like P) to carry votes. (Currently they can only receive<br>
votes, but cannot cast or carry.) Then the whole group could "vote"<br>
for someone else, or for another group. That means it could exist<br>
higher up in the tree.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is I think how I see it. I see many use cases for such groups, and would like to see a way in which they can form and dissolve in a way which is not too traumatic. Inside the group there would be an internal vote, and indeed they would be able to adopt different ways of organising this - they could nest an LD system within the group node or adopt another simpler voting system. </div>
</div><br>