On May 25, 2008, at 21:01 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
If the 'black' person sees himself (and those like him) as at a
disadvantage, there is an excellent chance he will be more highly
motivated than his counterparts to seek a position from which he
can improve his (and their) lot.
Yes, many minority representatives may be highly motivated. (But they
may also feel weaker, being against the majority opinion and less
interested than the majority representatives.)
In addition, the 'black' person is not without recourse. When he
makes a choice, it can be one or the other of the whites ... or
neither.
Yes, he can influence, but if the other two are 'white' he may have
to satisfy with a 'half white' solution anyway.
And, as a last resort, if he perceives both of them as hostile, he
can assure that neither advances by not voting at all.
Also a majority representative in a group with two minority
representatives might decide that since he was unlucky and ended
"unfairly against all probabilities" in a group with two minority
representatives it is fair enough not to vote at all.
When viewed strictly in racial terms, the implication that two
whites will not select a 'black' is a bit extreme.
The technical problem is that any small bias will accumulate in the
chained process. The voters thus need not hate the minority but just
have some bias (to cause a bias to the proportionality).
In many questions it is also quite ok to have different opinions and
favour them (unlike in the racial questions). Two greens and one blue
in a room could mean that the greens will say "of course we will
elect a green since green ideas are good". And that would be
considered ok. They picked the best candidate at least from their
point of view.
When three randomly chosen people from a neighborhood select one
person to represent the other two, the chances are excellent that
they will reject those who are obviously unfit. By the second
iteration, the most objectionable people will have been eliminated
by those who know them best.
Yes, the ones that are no good and who make that obvious also to
others will not advance far.
While it is not unreasonable to imagine the people at the first
level will pick those they believe best suited, those selected may
not have a desire for public office.
Yes, people who do not want the job will not go far.
(I was also not happy with the idea that those who want to advance do
advance. Often it would be wise to elect people that would be happy
to serve as the representatives of others but who do not have any
unusually strong interest to take the power. Some people may also
dislike politics since they expect those people to be corrupt/greedy/
power hungry etc. Of course most political systems have this problem.)
One may argue that the majority of those who advance will be people
of poor judgment, but to do so is to assert that the people, in
general, lack the ability to discern between those of good judgment
and those of poor judgment.
This could be claimed to be a negative property of almost any
political system. (The random vote based methods that I discussed
would alleviate these problems.)
Here's one example. Two voters want less X, one voter wants more X.
If the minority representative (who wants to advance) waits first to
hear the opinions of the other two and then says "I also think less X
might be better" or "both opinions have some justification" he may
have better chances to proceed to the next level when compared to a
situation where he is fully honest. It may thus pay off to hide one's
true feelings and just be nice towards the others.
People who are caught lying would be kicked out soon but people who
are "diplomatic" (and hide their intentions and smile in all
directions despite of their inner strong feelings and intentions)
could advance far. I mean that you are right that people tend to
elect good people but on the other hand "bad" people do tricks that
will help them advance far.
(One could say that the rules of politics typically favour people
that are politicians by nature. This is good in some sense but bad in
another. You should know what "politicians" are like and what kind of
people typically climb the ladders to the political elite :-).)
If that were true, the people would be incapable of governing
themselves, in which case discussing electoral methods is moot.
Thus, while it is not universally true that people of good judgment
will be selected, it is generally true and can be accepted as a
basis for proceeding.
Interesting. Modern democratic methods could be claimed to be the
best known methods, and at the same time methods that do not work
well. I have heard you "complain" that the current position of the
parties is not what it should be. Current political systems (and also
e.g. current market economy) may be better than the laws of jungle
that they in a way have replaced. They certainly are not perfect and
in my opinion they also have many characteristics that could be
improved.
I think people are indeed both capable and incapable of governing
themselves. Just look e.g. at the amount of violence the humans
exercise against each others (i.e. within the same species, not only
against other species and pray animals) at this planet at the moment.
Is that sensible behaviour of a species that thinks it represents the
best values of the universe? Maybe we are "out of jungle" but maybe
not very far out yet :-).
The effect of this circumstance is progressive; the further a
person advances, the more we can consider him a person of good
judgment.
Or a good crook. (Btw, I assumed above that you don't like the
politicians that have populated the party offices today that much. Do
you want to offer them ladders where they can compete with their
climbing skills, maybe a more random style of election, or something
else.)
we must consider the incentives that might cause a person of good
judgment to select the poorer of the other two participants in his
group.
IDEOLOGICAL COMMITMENT
Unless it is a preponderant majority, reliance on ideology alone
must ultimately fail to advance a supporter.
Yes, minorities tend to disappear, large majorities tend to advance.
In binary questions like yes/no or more/less the bigger side tends to
advance.
In very small groups, practical considerations tend to take
precedence over ideological ones. When three people spend an
extended period (days and weeks) to evaluate one another, the
topics they discuss are more apt to be matters of joint concern,
like taxes, area development, schools, congestion, employment,
health and the myriad other parts of everyday life than
abstractions like ideology or party.
Strategically it does not make sense to reveal that one belongs to an
ideological minority. Better to talk about matters that are common to
most people. Instead of saying "I'm a Communist" it might make more
sense to start the discussion by saying "the current policy of
President Bush might be slightly too right wing oriented since it has
not received the support of all the citizens".
The point is that, for the most part, the electorate is not a bunch
of stick figures, incapable of rational thought.
Yes, one should not bypass the discussion phase and thereby ignore
the viewpoints that others maybe want to express.
ECONOMIC BENEFIT
bribe
Yes, to be avoided. In the triads their temporary and random nature
decrease the risk. The fact that the decision makers are known and
various discussions will take place between the members increases the
risk.
The risk may be higher at the top levels. If there are some
experienced politicians/negotiators left they could end up doing some
horse trading (not necessarily direct bribes but maybe "some rewards
to show good spirit" or "political agreements").
I can not guarantee your concern "... that people that are good at
fooling other people and hiding their true (maybe less noble)
intentions will reach the top levels more often than others." is
unfounded. However, I believe careful thought on these points will
show the opposite is more likely.
I think both components are present. I think all political systems
(see the current ones) tend to offer paths to the best climbers once
they learn the tricks of the new systems. For this reason it is good
to keep one's eyes open and monitor the behaviour of the system
continuously, and not become complacent and see the current rules as
"our perfect system". Better to have an attitude of "continuous
improvements and patching too".
Juho
___________________________________________________________
All New Yahoo! Mail Tired of [EMAIL PROTECTED]@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
