On May 29, 2008, at 2:00 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
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.
Ok, highly motivated individuals are likely to be interested and
active. I just referred to the not so highly motivated ones that may
have various reasons to be more passive.
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?
Yes, but at the next higher level we might have lots of moderate
'whites' and fewer 'blacks' than what their proportional number would
suggest. The 'whites' would again elect whites.
Note that most of my detailed comments can still be linked to
pointing out the non-proportional characteristics of the triad method.
I want our electoral process to raise strong people who have the
courage of their convictions and the ability to present and support
them.
One could claim that parties are the current path that offers strong
fighters the opportunity to climb up in the hierarchy of the
society. I mean that there are many similarities in how the parties
work and on how the triads work, and strong people tend to find their
way upwards, and we should consider to what extent that field should
be open for all to play as they wish, and to what extent we should
steer the process to avoid the strongest ones (in the climbing skills
sense) making the system their own fortress. (There are of course
also many meaningful differences between the current party system and
the proposed triads.)
"Some believe we cannot remove corruption from our political
systems because humans are corruptible. Why should we believe such
a canard?
I tend to think that there is a balance of forces influencing in
different directions. The forces include human interest to do things
that are good for all, human interest to do selfish things (these two
can be said to be about constant), the unwritten rules of the
society, the written laws and law enforcement of the society, current
level of corruption in the society, the interest within the society
to improve itself, the level of understanding of social phenomena in
the society, nearby alternative examples and their impact, different
roles/morale/impact of the leaders/intelligentsia/regular people.
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').
I just meant that if 55% of the voters have opinion X and they tend
to elect similar minded people with 55% probability, that is enough
to cause some accumulating bias when we proceed towards the upper
layers.
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'm not sure I'm a pessimist. I just think that if people have
managed to corrupt political systems before they might do that also
to the new systems. And I also think that we should be prepared for
that and develop tools that can both keep the corruption out of the
new systems and also kick it out from the old systems (i.e. not trust
on that the new system would be resistant to all the old problems).
Often it is also better to do the modifications in the old systems
since we already know its tricks and this way one can avoid the
potential opportunities for corruption that may take advantage of the
uncertainties of the new systems. Grass is not always greener on the
other side of the fence. All this "pessimism" ("realism",
"skepticism") may be needed to achieve the "optimistic" targets.
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.
I'm happy to make trials with new methods. Different environments
may lead to different end results. And certainly one will always
find few surprises too when trying these new patterns. And fixes may
be applied based on the experiences.
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.
Here I'd like to comment that I'm not a strong believer in continuous
positive improvements in history. The winners tend to write the
history so that always the new rulers are better than the old ones.
Some positive changes (Gutenberg, democracy, independent judges) may
however be relatively permanent by nature, but we should not trust
that we are going upwards all the time. The cycles of history may
sometimes take us down to and we may easily become blind to such
negative trends.
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.
I think Montesquieu's separation of powers was a good idea and he
could have continued to propose also separation of political decision
making from money and other potentially biased lobbying (i.e.
discussion OK but keep it balanced and open). Also other methods
could be used in addition to the "military camps".
Juho
___________________________________________________________
Copy addresses and emails from any email account to Yahoo! Mail - quick, easy and free. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/trueswitch2.html
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
