[EM] language/framing quibble

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Morning, Kristofer

re: "So, in essence, the pyramid structure remains even after
      selection?"

Yes.  We have the capability of retaining the information and it should 
be used to enhance the role of those elected to act as spokesperson for 
a segment of the electorate.  In this connection, we should note the 
random grouping of candidates at each level insures that the segment of 
the electorate represented by each elected official will be diverse.

How this capability is actually used will depend on those who implement 
the process.  As I've said before, I don't favor rigid monitoring of the 
people we elect.  However, because the process provides a simple means 
of enabling referenda and recall, the implementors should establish 
rules for their use.



re: "You'll lose the corruption resistance by surprise property.
      This would mean that external parties could try to corrupt
      those at the next highest level in order to overturn the
      highest; that is, if the next to highest council has formal
      powers. If it doesn't, there's nothing to say, in the worst
      case, that the highest level will listen to them, so let's
      say they have."

The process does not give unselected people any powers.  If they are to 
have powers, they must be granted by those who implement the process. 
As you point out, it would be fairly easy to devise rules that destroy 
the integrity of the system.  Indeed, that is precisely the way the 
current system was devastated, so the risk is real and imminent.  The 
best defense may be analyze the rule-making aspect as quickly and as 
thoroughly as possible, one of the many considerations I hadn't anticipated.



re: "... lower levels may initiate referenda (initiative or
      recall) as if a majority of those below them in the pyramid
      had requested it ..."

I understand the reasoning but wonder if it's not a bit dangerous to 
assume those at lower levels support a given side of a single issue? 
Would it not be better to ask them, since the means of doing so is at hand?

Your suggestion that "... if a person at level n wants to ask the people 
of something, he must get a majority at levels below him to agree, or a 
majority of the two levels below, or something like that." is probably 
the better option.

The resolution of this issue it tied to the particulars of the election 
cycle(s), particularly the term of office of the elected officials. 
Where an entire body is replaced every two years, there should be little 
need for referenda.  The combination of the time it takes for a public 
official to perform a misdeed and for that fact to become public, 
combined with the time the referendum takes, will usually exceed the 
time it will take to replace the individual in the next election.  Even 
so, we must have a mechanism to deal with malfeasance during longer terms.



re: "If you have computers, you could [pass messages] in a manner
      similar to delegate cascade. Anybody can submit a message.
      The message is given weight according to (strength gained
      from those below the sender in the pyramid) / (population
      size). The computer lists messages sorted by weight. PR
      methods could have some form of successive downweighting so
      that say, a very persistent person in the middle of the
      pyramid doesn't crowd out others at his level.

I will have to consider this more carefully.  The capability for 
referenda is important, but I suspect the process should be simple and 
direct.  In each case, referenda can only instruct a single 
representative to act in a certain manner or remove that representative 
from office.  If a movement intended to alter the direction of the 
government arises, it must take form in each 'pyramid' separately.

Parties can, will, and should exist, but lacking control of the process, 
they will perform their proper function of giving voice to ideologies. 
If a groundswell evolves, it can force a change of direction of 
government, but that is much more likely to occur through repetitive 
elections than through referenda.

With regard to 'tiny voters', I'm inclined to think they may be the most 
important.  Here's why.  The majority of those who do not advance beyond 
the lower levels are people with little interest in holding public 
office.  They are content to let others fill that role.  If an event 
energizes them to alter their aversion to political involvement, it may 
be worthwhile to consider their point of view.  (Of course, there is the 
matter of those who whine and complain about everything.  Separating the 
wheat from that chaff may be non-trivial.)



re: "What do you mean by requests for guidance?"

Although I think, in general, those we elect should be left to fill the 
roles we elect them to fill, unusual circumstances can arise that are 
beyond the realm of normal governmental operation.  The current 
financial debacle is but one example.  At such times, our 
representatives should recognize the need for and seek the guidance of 
their constituents.  I'm not confident we can form a generic injunction 
that they do so because I'm not sure how to define an 'unusual 
circumstance'.  It may be that the body, itself, should be required to 
instruct representatives to seek guidance in the event of an 'unusual 
circumstance' but I fear that opens the door for distortion and abuse.



A couple of additional thoughts:

1) So far, I've left open the means by which candidates reach specific 
offices.  After thinking about your suggestion for larger group sizes, 
it occurred to me that might be the best solution for the final stage. 
By that time, all the candidates have been throughly examined, several 
times.  When a number sufficient to fill all the open posts (and a few 
extra) is reached, that group decides who will fill what office by the 
means you described:  Candidates list their preferences for each office, 
by name.  Those most frequently listed for a given post are elected to 
that post.

2) Governments have a plethora of appointive offices.  Although many of 
these are plums, dispensed for political advantage, there may be some 
offices that are properly filled by appointment.  If so, the 
appointments must be made come from those at the highest level who were 
not elected to public office.  Also, in the event of the recall of a 
public official, the replacement must be selected from those at the 
highest level that were not elected.

Fred