[EM] language/framing quibble

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Afternoon, Kristofer

It appears I attributed greater subtlety to Mr. Nesbit's comment than it 
warranted.  The primacy of collective responsibility over individual 
rights in modern society is so compelling such a simplistic 
interpretation did not occur to me.

One need look no further than the nearest stop-light to see that 
unrestrained liberty is neither attainable nor desirable in a populous 
society.  If two automobiles approach an intersection from different 
directions at the same time, one or the other must yield.

That is not a paradox, it's maturity.

One may have an academic interest in where individual liberties end and 
public responsibilities begin, but, when discussing government, one can 
only create a paradox by attributing more rights to individuals than 
obligations to the society that nurtures them ... and that is 
self-destructive.

The assertion that "voting is the exact opposite of individual rights" 
is only valid in terms of one's democratic right to participate in 
government.  An electoral process that only allows individuals to 'vote' 
for people selected or proposals formulated by oligarchical 
establishments is the exact opposite of our natural right to govern 
ourselves.


re: "I think party neutral PR methods are better than list PR,
      and open list is better than closed list (the latter being
      what we have over here). If any person can say 'here's the
      list of signatures, put me on the ballot', that's much
      better than if you have to have a party (which can be
      corrupted); and if voters can decide what order to rank the
      candidates of a party in list PR, that's better than being
      forced to rely on party elites doing that ordering 'for
      them'."

     "Those who argue in favor of closed PR here usually employ a
      statesman-type argument: they say that the party elites are
      more suited to choosing the ranking of the candidates
      because they're not prone to populism. But if populism is a
      problem, deal with populism directly through making the
      system more stable. Be consistent and thorough."

What you say about open and closed list methods seems eminently rational 
to me, even though I don't feel competent to comment on those methods. 
I should probably study them more carefully, for they are in the realm 
of the 'here and now' rather than the 'perhaps sometime' area I normally 
haunt.

I am inhibited from doing so by the general lack of recognition of the 
anti-human aspects of governments based on partisanship.  So few people 
understand the political mechanism which, over the past 150 years, 
nurtured the economic behemoths that dominate our existence and pollute 
the world in which we live that I feel I must do what I can to call 
attention to the central problem ... the people we elect to represent 
our interests.  Until we select better people, we can not improve our 
society.


re: "This also suggests that a sufficiently sophisticated
      attacker could bribe some members to diminish the triad's
      influence, so that others more favorable to his cause would
      prevail. Consider this (contrived) situation:

            7              8
           YYN            YNN

        YYN YYN YNN   YYN YNN YNN
         1   2   3     4   5   6

      An external participant may bribe council 5 to vote Y, or
      simply be indecisive if he estimates the random decision
      would fill the triad with an Y-majority, resulting in an Y-
      majority at 8. This may not be a viable attack; I'm mostly
      just charting what kind of indirect corruption may be done.
      In any event, it would probably be best applied at the
      higher levels, since then there's enough time for the
      external groups to perform the actual bribery."

That is very descriptive.  In terms of bribery, given the huge number of 
councils (about 3,000 in an electorate of 9,000 in the Sefton example) 
at the lower levels, it would be (as you point out) best applied at the 
higher levels.  As we agree, the self-interest of the participants will 
make the attempts difficult.

However, the description is important for another reason; it shows the 
role of the media in the process.  It is the media that is the external 
participant.  The media influences public opinion at a visceral level, 
and it is reaction to this influence that will cause a council member at 
5 to switch positions.  When called upon to examine issues carefully and 
in detail, thoughtful people will see beyond the shallowness of media 
reports and commentary.  It is here that intellect assumes ascendancy 
over passion.


re: "It's also possible for the conspirators to corrupt a low
      level triad just to deny someone who would otherwise become
      an obvious choice at the higher levels ..."

I suspect this will happen, even without conspiracy.  At the lowest 
levels, pettiness and emotion-based biases are certain to cause the 
improper exclusion of otherwise qualified individuals.  I can't put a 
pretty face on that fact.  I can only point out that frequent elections 
will offer opportunities for the victims of such nonsense and random 
assignments to triads will prevent recurrence.  I also believe the 
bigoted people who create such circumstances will be excluded in the 
early rounds.


re: "... corrupting the triad process while the selection is
      going on would be very hard. I tried to determine which
      cases could happen, even if those are unlikely, as the
      information can only help. The randomization makes planned
      corruption difficult, and the bubbling up of good candidates
      makes impromptu corruption difficult as well."

I'm only reposting this assertion because some folks seem to fear the 
method could be suborned.  For them, your comment bears repeating.

Fred