Good Afternoon, Raph
re: "A person who wants to be selected would try to convince the
other 2 to support him, even if he thinks one of them would
be better.
This is the conflict of interests."
Of course a person who wants to be selected will try to attract the
support of the other two. That is how people who want to be selected
gain advancement. As the levels move forward and the group members, who
all want to be selected, interact with each other, the relationships
become more dynamic. Each will be attentive to nuances they can exploit
to advance their own interest. At the same time, they will gauge their
peers. Their perceptions about each will run the gamut from 'absolutely
not' to 'I don't think so' to 'maybe' to 'absolutely' and will shift as
they gain insights into the qualities of the others.
You said elsewhere that your "... big concern is the incentive to
participate". I submit that the possibility of being selected or
influencing the selection is an outstanding incentive to participate."
When the deadline approaches, the group can make a choice or not. If
they make no choice, none of them will advance, which raises an
interesting point:
If a group is unable to make a selection, doesn't that show none of the
members had the qualities we seek in our leaders? If not one of the
three could persuade two people of their suitability for advancement,
how could any of them represent a multitude?
re: "Well, I made a suggestion. Have one triad judge the other. The 3
'judges' are thus not deciding which one of them makes it to the next
round."
That would defeat the purpose.
One of the powerful forces that motivates humans is the pursuit of
self-interest. Its influence is pervasive and affects both our economic
and our political existence. It should be evident that the unbridled
pursuit of self-interest is not beneficial for society. If we are to
improve our political system, one of our first concerns must be to
harness our tendency to pursue our own interest.
That is the purpose of Practical Democracy.
It does so by allowing everyone to seek public office, but creating an
environment where candidates are carefully examined by people with a
vital interest in the office they seek. The fact that the examination
is conducted by people who also want the position is crucial. After
all, who can we rely on to insure that a candidate's pursuit of
self-interest is not detrimental to the public interest than someone
who's own self-interest is intimately involved in the process. Who
better to establish a candidate's bona fides than someone who wants the
same job?
Fred
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
