[EM] Arrow's axioms & an alternative to elections

[Philippe Errembault]

> > hmmmm... Now that I re-read the text, I realise that your problem 
> > about decision
> > taking and collapsing alternatives, probably came from here:

> Actually, it was along the lines of 'forcing linear' decisions, by 
> analogy with the way that quantum states evolve smoothly over time 
> until a measurement is made.   That is, human individuals (and 
> societies) are rarely in coherent states -- being a mass of conflicting 
> and inconsistent thoughts and desires -- but at various points in times 
> we still need to resolve them into decisions.   You sounded like you 
> are trying to avoid the need for such decisions, but perhaps that was 
> an overstatement on my part.

Yes, ok, I understand, now. In fact, I would rather say that, If we take your 
analogy, an election system works like matter, taking the average behaviour 
of all particles... but matter has no intelligence. My idea is to replace an averaging 
system by a brain-like system, which does not work through a deterministic 
process like averaging, but may give the hope for something more intelligent.
I don't want to avoid the need of decisions, but I wan't to avoid the need for 
something deterministic, which would hold the decision system in a "dumb" state.


> >  My proposition was
> > mostly intended for people representation, mostly at parlementary 
> > level.
> > Executive decisions are not taken at that level... As you said, if we 
> > want a leadership,
> > we probably will need another kind of process for executive decisions.

> Okay, if we're talking about legislatures, then perhaps I could 
> interpret your proposal as allowing dynamic self-assembling 'districts' 
> of interest which in turn form smoothly varying hierarchies of decision 
> making.  WIth various actual legislative decisions made on different 
> levels at varying timescales, rather than the two-tier (representatives 
> vs. full referendum) that we tend to have now.

> It certainly offers an interesting alternative to geographical 
> districting and periodic elections, and so would perhaps appeal to 
> those who like Proportional Representation.

> The biggest problem I see is, who gets to define the rules for what 
> gets decided at which level?  If the authority for that is too 
> dispersed, you get a logjam.  If too centralized, you risk devaluing 
> certain levels which would seemingly defeat the whole purpose of the 
> arrangement.

Yes, ok. that can be a problem. I suggest the following strategy : 
- Decision are taken a the top level, 
- if citizen disagree with a decion, they can change their representaion at any time
- If representatives think they are not sure about a decision, then they report the qusetion to the n-1 level.


Philippe