Good Morning, Michael
re: "... you might consider that a strict implementation of your
method is unnecessary ... "
I outlined a concept, implementation is a separate step. It is, I
think, inevitable that the implementors will modify the method to suit
the circumstances they deem important. I may have an opinion about the
efficacy of those modifications, but whether or not the implementors
heed my views is beyond my control.
re: "... there is much to be said for these particular freedoms.
They include:
i) Triad size unbounded, not limited to 3
[The smaller the group size, the less impediment there is to the
expression of ideas. The larger the group size, the greater the
tendency for members to 'follow the leader'. A group size of 3 is not
cast in concrete, but it offers advantages worthy of note.]
ii) Voter chooses her own triad, and may migrate to another, at
any time
[If one's goal is to enable multiple parties, this may be a good
suggestion, but it is not supportive of a non-partisan approach to
democracy. Random assignment to small groups reduces the influence of
parties. It also ensures that everyone has an equal opportunity to
participate in, and learn from, the process because the dynamics that
affect each participant vary from election to election.]
iii) Voter may withdraw her vote, or shift it to another
candidate, without restriction"
[That is a fundamental tenet of Practical Democracy, as proposed.]
Fred Gohlke
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
