On Jun 30, 2008, at 12:58 PM, Fred Gohlke wrote:
I've thought about your proposal since I first read it the other
day. I'm unclear about the human dynamics. The proposal, as later
adjusted, seems to have a negative tinge; it relies on eliminating
people judged undesirable rather than elevating those judged
desirable.
Am I wrong in imagining that accentuating the negative assumes those
not eliminated must be desirable?
Presumably, after the undesirables are eliminated, those randomly
selected to make succeeding decisions will base them on the greater
or lesser amounts of desirability of those remaining until, in the
final stages, only the most desirable remain.
Do I have the fundamental idea right? Does accentuating the
negative provide an advantage?
Something like this, it seems to me, depends for its desirability on
the agreed intent of the group. This mechanism is good for finding a
centrist, compromise candidate. But one could also argue that in the
4D-2R example, in some circumstances the D's are entitled to choose
their own idea of a best candidate.
Take the US Senate, for example. Should the Senate be forced to elect
Joe Lieberman (say) as the Senate leader because he's in some sense in
the middle of the spectrum? Bad example, maybe, because he might be
knocked out earlier, but the point remains. Similarly in a
parliamentary system--there are good reasons for the PM to be the
majority party leader, and not the most bland compromise candidate in
the group.
Nonetheless, I can see the advantage of this method in a highly
factionalized group that is nonetheless motivated to choose a mutually
acceptable leader and do business.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
