Good Morning, Raph
re: "My concern would be that their opinions would be dismissed
out of hand. If there is nobody pushing them at a national
level, then that is an almost instinctive reaction to weird
ideas (including 'good' weird ideas)."
Any opinion that can "be dismissed out of hand", should be. Even a
'good' weird idea must have enough appeal to inspire thought.
re: "Well, would be worth seeing if it works at the council level
first."
I agree. That's why I was helping with the draft for the Sefton Borough
Council. Will it cause a ripple? I dunno.
re: (About explaining the worst case, where all except a minority
gets removed), "Ahh, I did with the religious minority?"
As I said in my response to that explanation, the reasoning is seriously
flawed. It is based on the idea that an individual can 'veto' any
selection except his own. That's a losing proposition because it
prevents the individual's advance. It is not a strategy by which any
ideology, however rabid, can gain power.
re: "The question comes down to how well the 'Veto anyone else
being promoted' works." and the strained rationale that
follows:
The entire derivation leading to "A 10.41% minority would take 10 rounds
to be virtually 100% and 6 rounds to have a majority." is based on
irrational assumptions. I recognize the need to find a hole in the
concept, but a concerted ideological attack isn't one of them. The
proposal atomizes all ideologies, the 'good' ones and the 'bad' ones,
and forces their detailed examination.
re: (with regard to a zealot), "He says nothing about his veto
plan, and then at the end if he can't get through he vetoes."
That is roughly equivalent to a suicide bomber. Fortunately for all of
us, such people are but an infinitesimal portion of our society
(although they do damage in excess of their number.)
Note that the process prevents the zealot from affecting more than two
people. The effect, for them, is bad, but they have two things in their
favor: They have an opportunity to convert the zealot to a different
view and they have the knowledge that elections are a repetitive
process. They'll have another chance.
re: (with regard to whether a zealot could advance), "Would
people see through him?"
That depends on his talent for obfuscation and deceit and the
perceptiveness of his peers. We currently endure a system that elevates
unscrupulous people by design. They are masters of deceit and
obfuscation. Were they subjected to the critical examination proposed
in Practical Democracy, very few would attain public office. As I said
in the outline (and to Kristofer Munsterhjelm, the other day):
"This is a distillation process, biased in favor of the most
upright and capable of our citizens. It cannot guarantee that
unprincipled individuals will never be selected ... such a
goal would be unrealistic ... but it does insure that they are
the exception rather than the rule."
re: "It would depend on how the voting works."
That will be an implementation matter. In my opinion, the three people
in a triad, after due deliberation, will either be able to say 'We've
agreed on a candidate' or 'We cannot agree on a candidate'. I'm not
sure more should be required.
re: "You could assume that a person from a religious group was
going to be a zealot."
One should not assume anything. That is particularly true when the
process provides an opportunity to examine the person and determine the
extent of their zealotry.
re: "Reason is both the problem and solution here. Reason sets
up the system and reason tries to find ways to abuse it."
And, that, dear Raph, is a very astute observation. No system is
impervious to corruption. That's why it's important to probe for
weaknesses in the proposal ... as you've been doing.
re: "... I was just responding to the suggestion that having
pairs of triads would cause a problem if there was an uneven
number of triads. It seems the same solution could apply."
That's a good point. I should have seen it ... but didn't.
re: "... the increase from 2 to 3 people isn't a major increase.
If people can handle 2, then they can handle 3."
I don't agree. Oh! I agree they can handle 3, but I don't agree they
can be as detailed or thorough in their evaluation. It takes time and
attention to gain insight into another person's nature. The amount one
devotes to the task affects the depth of their understanding. First
impressions are slowly validated or rejected over time, and the greater
the time the more accurate the assessment (and the less chance a zealot
will slip through).
re: "The point was that the number of triads that end up in a
stalemate would increase as the number of rounds pass."
This is a good thought. The circumstances set up interesting dynamics.
Since those who advance will be people with a strong desire for public
office, they're not going to yield easily. Yet, those unable to
attribute value to others will not make good representatives. We can
anticipate considerable tension in the later triads, and that gives the
participants an opportunity to gauge the others' grace under fire.
That's a significant benefit of the method.
re: "What about rescrambling them. Triads that fail to reach a
consensus are reformed. Each round might consist of 2-3
sub-rounds."
That's a possibility. My initial reaction was unfavorable, but after
thinking more about it, it may be a reasonable adaptation. It
introduces scheduling problems, but if the stalemate problem turns out
to be greater than I anticipate, the schedules can be reworked.
Fred
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
