[Election-Methods] Selecting Leaders From The People

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Evening, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

I'm not quite sure how to respond.  Clearly, you have strong feelings. 
My problem is to isolate the points you make so we can examine them 
carefully.  Obviously, your Wikipedia experience is beyond my knowledge, 
so I won't comment on that.

It's interesting that you find a similarity in what I've written with a 
proposal of your own.  Would it be constructive to compare the ideas, 
item by item?  Perhaps we could improve one or the other.

To start the process, I note you do not approve of my proposal for a 
group size of 3, a prohibition against voting for oneself, and a 
requirement that groups select one of their number to represent the 
other two or be disqualified.  Here is some expansion of those ideas:

GROUP SIZE
At the initial level, when the entire electorate meets for the first 
time to select one member of a their group to represent the other two, 
there will be three kinds of participants:  (1) those who do not want to 
be selected, (2) those willing to be selected, and (3) those seeking 
selection.  In any group where all three participants do not want to be 
selected, the triad will not make a selection and all three participants 
will be eliminated.

Thus, among the groups that actually make a selection, the people who 
are selected will either be people who want to be selected or people who 
are willing to be selected.  This is not to say that each person must be 
of one type or the other, but rather that each person will be somewhere 
on the continuum from those willing to be selected to those wishing to 
be selected.

For simplicity, we will assume that the desire to be selected is 
equivalent to a desire for public office and that the people we mention 
as examples are at one end of the wish-willingness continuum or the 
other.  The reality is infinitely more complex but the results will 
differ only in degree from what we learn by thinking about the kind of 
people who are at the hypothetical poles.

We must also note that the attitudes we've mentioned may not be static. 
  Although, generally, a person seeking public office is unlikely to 
become a person willing to serve, a person willing to serve might be 
transformed into a person seeking public office:

[If person-willing-to-serve (A) feels person-seeking-office (B) is not a 
good choice, (A) may seek to persuade the group that (A) or (C) is a 
better choice.  Such an effort moves (A) closer to being a 
person-seeking-office because, if A will not support B, the chance that 
A will be chosen increases.]

Based on this assessment, we can say that people who advance to the next 
level either persuaded the other members of their triad to select them 
or they relied on the other members to select them.  The difference is 
the extent to which they used persuasion to achieve selection.

In a pyramiding process of the type under discussion, it is reasonable 
to think that active seekers of public office will succeed more 
frequently than passive ones.  Thus, after several iterations of the 
process, we can anticipate that each member of a triad will be a person 
seeking public office.  Under such circumstances, the art of persuasion 
assumes mounting importance.  Those making the selection want desirable 
qualities in the person they choose.  Those seeking selection will try 
to persuade their peers they possess the qualities sought.

When persuasion occurs between two people, it takes place as a dialogue 
with one person attempting to persuade the other.  In such events, both 
parties are free to participate in the process.  The person to be 
persuaded can question the persuader as to specific points and present 
alternative points about the topic under discussion.  In such 
circumstances, it is possible that the persuader will become the persuaded.

When persuasion involves multiple people, it occurs more as a monologue 
with one person attempting to persuade the others.  The transition from 
dialogue to monologue accelerates as the number of people to be 
persuaded increases.  The larger the number of people, the less free 
they are to participate in the process.  As the number of people to be 
persuaded grows, the individuals among them are progressively less able 
to participate in the process.  They can not question the persuader as 
to specific points or present alternative points about the topic under 
discussion.  In such circumstances, it is impossible for the persuader 
to become the persuaded.

Viewed in this light, we can say that when selecting public officials, a 
system that encourages dialogue is preferable to one which relies on a 
monologue.  Discussion can best be encouraged by having fewer people in 
the "session of persuasion".  Because of the need for a definitive 
decision, I believe the best group size to encourage active involvement 
by all participants is three.  In working toward a functional system, 
other aspects of the matter are sure to arise.  The rationale for larger 
group sizes is welcome.


(I must abbreviate my response on the next two points.  It's getting 
late and I have to make a trip tomorrow.  If you feel these points need 
fleshing out, please let me know.  flg)


VOTING FOR ONESELF
As Robert Burns said so beautifully, we don't see ourselves the way 
others see us.  We are the least qualified to know whether we would be a 
good representative for others.  That is a decision they must make.  The 
issue is not what we think of ourselves but what others think of us. 
Can we convince them we can represent their interest better than someone 
else?  If we can't, it would be inane for them to elect us.


SELECT OR BE DISQUALIFIED
The purpose of an election is to elect representatives of the people. 
If the three members of a group are so inflexible they can not choose 
one of their number to represent the other two, none of them are 
qualified to serve in public office.

It is true that this requirement will allow one person to block any 
selection by the group by simply refusing to vote, but such a person can 
only exercise that option once in an election cycle.  Such a 
circumstance would be unfortunate for the two people in the group with 
that person but they will not be grouped with the same person in 
subsequent elections.  Also, it is worth noting that persuasion is an 
important part of public service and their inability to persuade the 
individual to participate is a factor in their disqualification.

Sorry I have to shut it down now.  Please let me know if you'd like me 
to elaborate on these ideas.

Fred