Good Afternoon, Juho
re: "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.)"
That statement begs analysis:
We agreed that, when a person in a minority (a '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." There is no
justification for saying such a person would "feel weaker, being against
the majority opinion". On the contrary, motivated people gain strength
of purpose when they are challenged. Furthermore, saying the highly
motivated individual is "less interested than the majority
representatives" is a contradiction in terms.
It would be more proper to say that, in some groups, the minority
individual will encounter highly motivated representatives of the
majority attitude. While that is true, since we have already decided
the people holding the majority view are less motivated than those
seeking recognition of a minority view, such instances will occur in a
relatively small number of groups.
In my state, the first level would comprise more than 1,800,000
three-person groups and the second level more than 600,000 such groups.
The attitudes of these groups embrace the attitudes of the entire
electorate. There will be groups with three members holding, to a
greater or lesser degree, the combination of views you consider the
majority view, three holding one or more minority views (and some
combination of the majority views, as well), two of one and one of the
other on both sides, and an incalculable mixture of people whose views
can not be considered as supporting either side. In all cases, strong
proponents of the minority views have the advantage of increased
motivation because they are in the minority.
Among thoughtful people, the challenge the minority individual faces is
not antagonism but inertia. The majority opinion is established. It's
proponents are secure in their own rectitude. They must be prodded to
see that the minority view has merit.
re: "Yes, he can influence, but if the other two are 'white' he may have
to satisfy with a 'half white' solution anyway."
Is that not the essence of compromise? There are trade-offs in all
decisions. Compromise is the essence of problem solution. Failure to
recognize there are views other than one's own is a form of idiocy
called fanaticism. Fanatics are not the kind of people we wish to
entrust with our government.
re: "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."
That is certainly true ... and it says more about the individual than it
does about the system. For my part, I am delighted that a person so
easily overwhelmed will not advance. I want our electoral process to
raise strong people who have the courage of their convictions and the
ability to present and support them.
re: "(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.)"
It may surprise you to know I felt that way, too. The way I expressed
my concern was:
"Not everyone who wants to achieve public office should. In fact, those
who desire public office are often the least fit to serve the public
interest. In this instance, willingness is a better criterium than desire."
I was dissuaded from this point of view by a gentleman in India.
Unfortunately, I no longer have access to his explanation of my error,
but you may be interested in my retraction:
"Good Morning, --------
Just a quick note to tell you I've been thinking more about people who
want to achieve public office. I've decided my assertion that "...
willingness is a better criterium than desire." is ... WRONG!!!
I've spent so many years watching those who want public office sell
their souls to our corrupt political system to achieve success, I've
fallen victim to the very thing I warn others about. As I've said
elsewhere:
"Some believe we cannot remove corruption from our political systems
because humans are corruptible. Why should we believe such a canard?
"We are misled by the high visibility of deceit and corruption in our
culture. The idea that it is inescapable leads to the self-defeating
notion that trying to correct it is futile.
"The reality is that the vast majority of humans are honorable,
law-abiding people. They have to be, for society could not exist otherwise."
You are correct. We do need people who want to lead. We need people
with the courage and vision to help us regain control of our government.
Our challenge is to ensure that we select the best of them for public
office so they can improve our society.
Thank you for helping me reach a better understanding of this important
point.
Fred"
re: "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)."
It may be a misunderstanding on my part, but that assertion seems to
contradict your main point: that minorities have no chance of survival
in chained process (assuming the method I've outlined is a 'chained
process').
re: "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."
and
"(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 :-).)"
This broaches an important point. I thought of mentioning it in my
previous post, but opted against it because that post was already too
long. It is particularly good for you and I to examine it because we
(seem to) bring opposing viewpoints to the discussion. You counter my
optimistic view of human nature with a more pessimistic (or skeptical) one.
I have absolutely no doubt that, as you say, participants will alter
their views as they try to gain acceptance and elevation by their group.
I heartily approve of this because, as I've said before, we (or, at
least, I) learn more from those who disagree with us than from those who
share our views. I've little doubt that's a universal truth that
differs only in the willingness of people to acknowledge it.
You feel those who listen to someone's view and alter their own to
accommodate it are dishonest, that they betray their true feelings. I
believe that's the way people learn. I feel one advantage of the Active
Democracy method is the broadening effect of the repetitive groupings on
the participants. They foster discussion and decisions on topics
important to our society but seldom discussed in our work-a-day lives.
Over a series of election cycles, those who wish to have a greater
effect will gain a better insight into the views of others.
I have said we can't guarantee a charlatan won't advance but I believe
they will be the exception rather than the rule. I also think our
ability to identify such people will improve. Judgment strengthens with
use. In our present atmosphere of media-centric misdirection,
obfuscation and deceit, we have no opportunity to exercise or apply our
judgment. We would do well to adopt an electoral method that puts a
premium on judgment.
re: "(political parties) certainly are not perfect and in my opinion
they also have many characteristics that could be improved."
Parties take on a life of their own. It is unwise to think they can be
improved in any way that will benefit the people. They are an
embodiment of human nature; they pursue their own interest at the
expense of the public interest. They function precisely as a thoughtful
person would expect them to function. Failure to grasp that elementary
fact will retard any effort to improve our electoral process.
re: "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 :-)."
No! I do not think it is sensible behavior, but I don't find it
surprising in a society where 'power' dictates relationships.
Throughout recorded history ... and what little we can guess about
prehistory ... force, whether physical or emotional, has ruled society.
Since Guttenberg, we are experiencing the birth and painstakingly slow
development of intellect as a countervailing force. It will triumph,
but not before we stop seeking ways to impose our will on others and
start seeking ways to impose the rule of reason.
Sooner or later, someone will ask why real estate investment trusts
control the most desirable property on the planet. When they find there
is no single city, no one nation, they can bomb to stop it, they will
start to realize such a blight can not be controlled unless the humans
among us apply reason to our predicament.
re: "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.)"
I would not deny the right to compete to anyone. I have faith that,
given a few weeks in their company, my fellow citizens can discern the
difference between a mountebank and a person of character.
re: "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 my opinion, thinking of politics in black/white, yes/no, either/or
terms is a grave error. It's a misdirection ploy. It focuses attention
on simple issues, diverting our awareness from serious matters. While
such nonsense occupied our attention, how many of us in the U. S.
realized our bankruptcy law was changed ... just before the bubble
caused by improperly secured loans (and their gimmicky packaging) burst?
How many understand that our representatives in government have now
burdened the people with the immense losses the financial institutions
incurred by their greed and improvidence?
re: "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'."
If you lack the conviction that communism is good and should be adopted
by your government, you might choose to hide your belief, but that's not
the way to gain acceptance for your views. If you believe your -ism is
superior to the -ism that dominates your society, you owe it to yourself
and to your compatriots to describe the error of their belief for them.
(Of course, if you adhere to a discredited concept, you are doomed to
sleep alone.)
re: "The risk (of bribery) 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")."
The risk is, indeed, higher when the candidates are selected and/or
elected to government office. There is a solution ... but do we have
the stomach to demand it?
Our elected representatives are in service for the length of their term
... just like members of our armed forces ... and like members of our
armed forces, they should be kept at a government installation. When I
went in the service, I reported to a military installation and that
became my home. The arrangements for our elected officials should be
similar.
The facilities at the installation should be as palatial as need be,
with golf courses, marinas, and all forms of educational and
entertainment facilities, but access to our representatives should be
restricted. Those wishing to affect pending legislation should present
their arguments, publicly, in the hearing rooms provided for the purpose
... and that should be the absolute limit of their interaction with our
elected representatives.
But, do we have the stomach for such a solution?
I see I'm behind by several posts. I will try to catch up but I'm
peddling as fast as I can.
Fred
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
