Good Afternoon, Raph
re: "However, under your system, they (minority views) do get
represented in the "level 1" triads. What they lose is the
having high level representatives."
Ahhhhh. Now we're at the crux of the matter ...
Whether or not a minority view retains high level representatives
depends on how well the holder of the minority view is able to persuade
others of the validity and desirability of the minority view. The
system guarantees that each and every view will have an audience, but
nothing, absolutely nothing, can make that view worthy of representation
except compelling advocacy.
re: "However, since your proposal is for a council rather than
the Parliament, then this is not as much an issue."
The proposal I posted was drafted for a specific Council. The concept
is equally appropriate for selecting representatives for any legislature.
re: "The worst case is that all except a minority view gets
removed."
Can you explain how that could occur?
> A dedicated minority could easily take control of the system.
> This doesn't necessarily mean that they are organised, just a
> bloc that holds a strong viewpoint.
>
> A dedicated religious group could fall into that category. If
> they represented 25% of the population and used a veto any
> appointment unless you are selected strategy, then they would be
> well represented in the next stage.
>
> The odds of a triad having at least one of them is 58%. Assume
> that half of them get through and the other half they veto, then
> they will represent 29% in the 2nd round. The remaining 41% will
> be people outside the bloc (though maybe lower as there could be
> vetoes there too). 29 out of 71 is 41%, so they have increased
> their share from 25 to 41% (65% increase).
>
> In round 2, 41% gets them a member in 79% of the triads.
> Assuming the same results, that gives them 39.5% through against
> 21% other. Thus in 2 steps they have a 65% majority.
>
> Repeated over 10 rounds would increase their share to nearly 100%.
>
> Now this is also true with standard election methods. People can
> stand for election on false pretenses and then do things that are
> not supported by the public. However, the more levels, the more
> chance of it happening.
That's subjective. The math is neither objective nor reasonable.
The argument based on the concept of a 'veto' is invalid. In a triad,
it takes two to make a selection. If a zealot refuses to agree to a
selection (i.e., 'vetoes' it) the triad will be unable to make a
selection (I cannot believe rational people will vote for a zealot who
refuses to participate). If there is no selection the bigot cannot advance.
Triads are made up of human beings intent on finding the best of their
number to act as their representatives. To suggest they will select
bigots is preposterous. The reality is that bigots, religious or
otherwise, will be the first eliminated, for there is nothing more
offensive to humans than zealotry they don't share.
Perhaps the most misleading point in the foregoing citation is the
failure to recognize that we're talking about real, breathing human
beings; people of intellect and judgment; the kind of people we interact
with, every day of our lives. We may not agree with all of their views,
but we must acknowledge that they are capable of reason.
If not, homo sapiens isn't very sapient.
re: "One possible solution to this would be to have the six
people meet and then have one triad judge the other."
If the rationale I've presented opposing this notion is inadequate, the
implementors may agree with you.
re: "My original suggestion was for a chain."
I missed that. Sorry. Mea culpa.
re: "... there is the same problem is the population is not
divisible by 3."
That issue is addressed in the proposal:
"Level 2 is a special case. If the number of candidates does
not divide equally into triads, any candidates remaining are
overflow. When there is overflow from Level 1, the extra
person(s) automatically become candidates at Level 2.
Thereafter, when there is overflow at any level, the number
of people needed to create a full triad are selected at
random from the people who were not selected at the previous
level."
re: "(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.)"
"I don't really see that as a major issue."
Failure to see this as a major issue is a serious concern. The purpose
of Practical Democracy is to give us an opportunity to evaluate the
people who will represent us in our government. We don't know these
people, yet we are going to entrust them with our future. It is
imperative that we evaluate our choices. We may not always get it
right, but if we have the time and the exposure to them, we can do a lot
better than we've been doing.
We are enduring a global financial meltdown because financiers, in a
rush of greed and stupidity, failed to evaluate their counter-parties
and we failed to evaluate our representatives. Instead, our
governmental representatives, chosen by our political parties, created
the vacuum in which the thieves thrived.
I shall do everything I can to avoid cursing our progeny with the filth
of partisan politics.
re: "... getting something like this implemented would be hard
enough."
You've got that right. Encouraging people to think objectively about
ideology is painful. Essentially, objectivity and ideology are
contradictions in terms.
re: "By voluntary I meant that the decisions of the final council
are only binding on those who participate."
I'm not confident I understand this. First, though the petition was
addressed to a Metropolitan Council, my discussion of it is as a method
of selecting representatives to any legislature. A legislature makes
laws for all the people, not just for those who participate.
Re: "You may seem the numbers being picked drop like a rock as
the round number increases."
I don't understand this, at all.
re: "Well, he can say that if they don't pick him, then nobody is
being selected. He has little ot lose by doing that."
All he can lose is his opportunity to advance.
I suspect level 1 will produce a few such idiots. Fortunately, they
will not advance to confound a higher level. Unfortunately, the two
people they are grouped with will be eliminated. The only saving grace
is that elections are a periodic process and those two people can not be
placed in the same triad with that idiot in the next several elections.
Further analysis of this flaw in the process may reveal a better
alternative.
Fred
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
