(no subject)
I seem to be coming up with a lot of ideas tonight.
1) Possibly a new form of governance.
Elections are held for existing positions in a government (or corporate structure). Everyone gets one vote, but anyone can register as a candidate just by saying so. This should result in zillions of candidates getting some votes. Then there is a second round of voting in which everyone is able to cast as many votes as they received in the last round. This continues until some candidate is elected with a majority of the votes.
In a sense, one can imagine votes as cards that are merely being passed around and accumulated into larger and larger piles by fewer and fewer candidates until a majority winner emerges. In fact, there don't even have to be defined rounds. If one vote passes through twenty different people in the same time it takes another vote to pass between two people, it doesn't matter.
Presumably the initial voters will be the least informed on the subjects in question (say the duties of a parks commissioner) but each successive round of voting should see the votes accumulate in the hands of people who are more and more informed on the issues surrounding the parks commissioner position.
But for this reason, the first round of voting will dump a lot of votes into the hands of celebrities. That is not ideal, but one must admit that celebrities already do wield a tremendous amount of political power without any good reason for doing so. The opinions of the proles on the Tibetan political situation are greatly influenced by the opinions of various actors and musicians.
Furthermore, the proles will likely tend to vote for celebrities whose political views are somewhat in line with their own. A far right wing prole is unlikely to vote for an actress who regularly speaks out in favor of gay marriage and socialistic causes. They will more likely vote for some country musician with more conservative views.
And since there are so many celebrities, it is unlikely that any one celebrity will be a viable candidate because the successive rounds of voting will be much less prone to passing additional votes to those same celebrities. I would expect to see celebrities pass their votes along to much less famous people whom they admire.
2) It might be possible to test such a system by holding a game. A random trivia card is drawn from a deck and everyone must vote on which player they think is most likely to answer the question correctly. Person A casts his vote for person B by giving person B a card with the name "person A" on it. Votes are passed along until someone has a majority, then that person submits an answer. If the answer is correct, a single point is awarded to each person whose name appears on the cards possessed by the elected individual. Then all cards are returned to their original owners and the next question is asked. The winner is the first player to reach some predefined number of points.
3) It might be possible to use the mathematical language of game theory to digitally describe various governance systems. These could be randomly generated and assigned a small pool of participants, and funded with a small pool of money. These would persist for some period of time, after which their performance would be evaluated based on some automatic criterion - say for example, how much money remains in their budgets. (More being better.) Then the digital values describing the most successful governance methods would be mated together as a genetic learning algorithm. These child governance systems are then run again, and so on. Eventually the most successful systems would be implemented in actual small organizations. The most successful of these would be mated and iterated, with some eventually being promoted up to medium sized organizations, and so on. This would continue in perpetuity.
1) Possibly a new form of governance.
Elections are held for existing positions in a government (or corporate structure). Everyone gets one vote, but anyone can register as a candidate just by saying so. This should result in zillions of candidates getting some votes. Then there is a second round of voting in which everyone is able to cast as many votes as they received in the last round. This continues until some candidate is elected with a majority of the votes.
In a sense, one can imagine votes as cards that are merely being passed around and accumulated into larger and larger piles by fewer and fewer candidates until a majority winner emerges. In fact, there don't even have to be defined rounds. If one vote passes through twenty different people in the same time it takes another vote to pass between two people, it doesn't matter.
Presumably the initial voters will be the least informed on the subjects in question (say the duties of a parks commissioner) but each successive round of voting should see the votes accumulate in the hands of people who are more and more informed on the issues surrounding the parks commissioner position.
But for this reason, the first round of voting will dump a lot of votes into the hands of celebrities. That is not ideal, but one must admit that celebrities already do wield a tremendous amount of political power without any good reason for doing so. The opinions of the proles on the Tibetan political situation are greatly influenced by the opinions of various actors and musicians.
Furthermore, the proles will likely tend to vote for celebrities whose political views are somewhat in line with their own. A far right wing prole is unlikely to vote for an actress who regularly speaks out in favor of gay marriage and socialistic causes. They will more likely vote for some country musician with more conservative views.
And since there are so many celebrities, it is unlikely that any one celebrity will be a viable candidate because the successive rounds of voting will be much less prone to passing additional votes to those same celebrities. I would expect to see celebrities pass their votes along to much less famous people whom they admire.
2) It might be possible to test such a system by holding a game. A random trivia card is drawn from a deck and everyone must vote on which player they think is most likely to answer the question correctly. Person A casts his vote for person B by giving person B a card with the name "person A" on it. Votes are passed along until someone has a majority, then that person submits an answer. If the answer is correct, a single point is awarded to each person whose name appears on the cards possessed by the elected individual. Then all cards are returned to their original owners and the next question is asked. The winner is the first player to reach some predefined number of points.
3) It might be possible to use the mathematical language of game theory to digitally describe various governance systems. These could be randomly generated and assigned a small pool of participants, and funded with a small pool of money. These would persist for some period of time, after which their performance would be evaluated based on some automatic criterion - say for example, how much money remains in their budgets. (More being better.) Then the digital values describing the most successful governance methods would be mated together as a genetic learning algorithm. These child governance systems are then run again, and so on. Eventually the most successful systems would be implemented in actual small organizations. The most successful of these would be mated and iterated, with some eventually being promoted up to medium sized organizations, and so on. This would continue in perpetuity.