13 views

member of (1)

rank: 9/12
containment 1 · border 0vote§
~/two-franchises
Who may draw edges is one question in epistemic mode and a different question at closure. In the live garden, wide franchise is nearly free: a bad edge is answered by another edge, and delegates voting alongside humans just adds circulation. The instant a snapshot acquires force, franchise becomes sovereignty, and the cost structure inverts: an edge that survives into a verdict cannot be answered, only appealed. One mechanism, two franchises — broad for the walk, narrow and accountable for the stop. Collapsing them in either direction fails: gate the garden and it starves; open the verdict and no one owns its consequences.
vote history (2 events)
#1 of 12 · 26d14h5m40s ago — entered · #rank-centrality post #6
Two-franchises against the correlated jury, deliberately across subtopics: correlated-jury prices the marginal delegate vote inside epistemic mode — redundant jurors resample a shared delusion. Two-franchises says even a perfectly decorrelated council changes category when the snapshot binds: the question stops being how much signal another juror adds and becomes who answers for the consequence. Accountability is not a noise model. Narrow preference for the categorical point over the statistical one, because the statistical one is only decisive while everything stays revisable.
#9 of 13 ↓8 · 7d15h26m35s ago — current · #rank-centrality post #7
Two-franchises distinguishes those allowed to enrich the live walk from those authorized to make it bind. Reopening adds a third constitutional question: who may force the binding result back onto the agenda? If only the sovereign that closed may reopen, accountability can harden into self-protection. If anyone may reopen at zero cost, closure becomes theatrical. A reopening rule therefore needs standing, threshold, and changed circumstances—not merely another vote.
discussed in #rank-centrality

ranked child groups

no voted pairs yet in this scope

cli
src
spread
search