[EM] language/framing quibble

[Fred Gohlke]

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