Good Morning, Raph
re: (With regard to the suggestion that the process 'Have one
triad judge the other'):
"Well, the person can still try to convince the judges, the
point is that he doesn't act as judge of his own fitness.
Basically, the six people would meet up and then after, the
judging triad would meet up."
This raises multiple points:
First, self-judgment is not germane. The issue is not what we think of
ourselves but what others think of us. Whatever we may think of
ourselves, if we cannot attract the support of others, our self-regard
is meaningless. As a practical matter, I would recommend that we not be
allowed to select ourselves; our role should simply be to select one of
the two people we're grouped with, or neither.
Second, the remote nature of selecting candidates from another triad
eliminates responsibility for one's actions. If one is inordinately
aggressive in examining members of a different triad, they pay no
penalty for undue aggressiveness.
Conversely, if one is aggressive in examining members of one's own
triad, that attitude will influence the others' selection. In such an
event, there are at least two possible effects for an aggressive examiner:
1) the examination fails to reveal a flaw in the examinee and is deemed
inappropriate, to the examinee's advantage and the examiner's
disadvantage, or
2) the examination reveals a flaw in the examinee, in which case the
examination is deemed appropriate and the examiner is seen to be perceptive.
We sacrifice such nuances at our peril.
Third, having one triad select a representative from another triad
introduces an unnecessary level of complexity:
* It is not clear whether
a) triad 'A' selects from triad 'B' and triad 'B' selects from
triad 'A', or
b) triad 'A' selects from triad 'B', triad 'B' selects from
triad 'x', and triad 'y' selects from triad 'A'
The (a) option may raise questions, but I haven't considered the
possibility in sufficient detail to be sure. The balance of this
comment assumes the (b) option, which is deemed the better of the two:
* The concept demands triads be paired, which requires an even number of
triads. Since there may not be an even number of triads, we have the
problem of providing an equitable arrangement for the odd triad.
* If members of one triad must make a selection from members of another
triad, there are three people, each evaluating three people instead of
the proposed arrangement where three people each evaluate two people.
This increases the evaluation load for each participant by 50%. Since
there is a limited time in which evaluation must be completed,
increasing the number of evaluation targets must reduce the depth and
effectiveness of each individual's evaluation.
Finally, we are discussing a concept. The actual implementation can be
expected to differ from the design for a variety of reasons, some
practical and some ideological. I will continue to provide a rationale
for my perspective. Whether or not that rationale is compelling is for
those who implement the concept to decide.
re: "... the issue I was dealing with ... was for non-compulsory
associations. If people don't have to participate (and
everyone has to follow the law), then why bother."
Although I personally prefer that participation be mandatory, I don't
think it matters greatly.
* If none of the three people in the initial triad wish to participate,
they don't and the triad expires without a selection.
* If two of the three people in the initial triad wish to participate,
they can select one or the other to advance, or request a new third
member to complete the triad, or they can make no selection, in which
case the triad expires.
* If only one of the three people wants to participate, that person can
report him- or herself as the selection of the triad. If either or both
of the other members of the original triad object to this default
self-selection, they must participate to prevent it.
In all cases, the original triad produces one selection or no
selections. Since the goal is to find people who seek election to
public office and then select the best of them, the process has
functioned as intended.
re: "... it would cause a stalemate if there was 2 people who
really wanted to be promoted."
The basic premise is that, after the first few levels, all members of
the group "really want to be promoted". That's why they reach their
current level. If a stalemate results, it is productive because
eliminates candidates who cannot attract the support of two people.
re: "However, if only one of them really wants to be promoted,
then he is likely to win by putting his foot down.
Is a 'no compromise' person the type that we want to get
elected?"
How, exactly, is that person to 'put his foot down'? In an environment
where we are free to choose, others can earn our support ... but they
cannot command it. Any attempt by someone to 'put their foot down' will
alienate the others, who are under no compulsion to be trod upon. Our
own nature ensures 'no compromise' candidates will be among the first
eliminated.
re: "Under the normal system, people who really want to be
elected tend to be the ones who get elected. Isn't that the
'bug' that random selection was supposed to solve?"
No. No. No. No. No.
We want people who want to be elected.
The 'bug' we seek to eliminate is the low quality of the people
nominated as candidates to represent us in our government. If we are to
improve society, our first step must be to improve the quality of those
we select to represent us in our government.
Fred
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
