Good Afternoon, Kristofer
re: "... the process we're describing is an exponential one.
That's where it gains its power, but that also means that
the views a candidate has to integrate rises very quickly.
Thus it may not only be corruption that limits the
representation, but simple ability ..."
That is true, and it is true regardless of the election method.
Further, since there are a finite number of seats in an electoral body,
any preference for a given ideology in one seat detracts from the
potential for other ideologies to be heard in that body. In fact, that's
a strong argument against partisan-based systems.
I believe we will attain the diversity we seek by atomization of the
electorate. In discussing the functioning of the process, we have
necessarily spoken in terms of a single 'pyramid', but there are a
multitude of such 'pyramids', each producing an individual
representative. While, on the one hand, we anticipate that the people
we select will not represent any ideological preference, we can be
absolutely certain that they will also lack unanimity of outlook. We
will not have a triumph of ideology, we'll have a triumph of (in my
view, intelligent) diversity.
re: "Another cause [of the difference in our views], I think, is
that I try to cover the possible errors with methods or
rules."
That is one of the reasons I treasure your work. Over the years, I've
tried to uncover the weaknesses in the concept, but I have blind spots ...
While I may have an idea or two
The important views will come from you
Concepts devised in a single brain
Can oft by logic be split in twain
re: "If I am too cautious, that will only end up reducing the
efficiency of the system. But if I'm not, it'll keep the
system from deteriorating."
We can not be too cautious when considering the way we select those who
will represent us in our government. It is an idealistic endeavour, and
idealists, by their nature, tend of gloss over some spots without
examining them carefully ... which is why idealists often find
themselves objects of ridicule.
Your commentary has been on point and cogent. Some apprehensions may
not be valid, but we'd be foolish not to consider them. We can discard
them when we have sound reasons for doing so. Here, in the initial
phases of developing a concept we would be remiss if we failed to test
every assumption we can.
Fred
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
