[EM] language/framing quibble

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Evening, Kristofer

Before responding to your most recent letter, I'd like to revisit a 
topic mentioned in your letter of Fri, 26 Sep.  In discussing the way a 
group of three people might resolve a traffic question involving three 
alternatives, each championed by a member of the group, you mentioned 
the possibility of a fourth, unrepresented, alternative.  I found your 
suggestion stimulating.

It stimulated more than I expected because, in reflecting on it, I 
recalled an aspect of human relations that influenced adoption of the 
triad concept in the first place ... the tendency of small groups of 
problem solvers to experience intuitive leaps.

In the hypothetical case we're discussing, the goal of the group is to 
solve the problem.  It is not uncommon for such efforts to produce 
unanticipated results.  Indeed, some enterprises seek such results with 
'brainstorming' sessions.  The chances of such mental leaps are severely 
restricted (if even possible) when the decision-making group is 
ideologically bound.  The mind is a wonderful thing.  We mustn't chain it.



And, now, to work ...


re: "... why are your web log entries timestamped 2010?"

Because the site puts the most recent posts at the point where they are 
the first encountered by visitors.  I asked the site how I could put the 
material in 'book order', and they told me I'd have to reverse the 
dates.  I chose a future date, and made subsequent posts at earlier 
dates to put the material in a logical order for the visitor.



With regard to focusing on the job our representatives do ...

   "I can see the point you're making, but I think you should be
    careful not to go to the other extreme, too.  Opinions may
    shift, but at the bottom of things, they're the people's
    priorities of in what direction to take society. The vagaries
    you speak of could be considered noise, and that noise is
    being artificially increased by the two main parties, since if
    they can convince their wing voters they represent their
    opinion (or change their opinion), then those voters are more
    likely to vote for them instead of not voting at all. That
    doesn't mean that there's no signal, though, and where that
    signal does exist, it should not be averaged out of existence
    or amplified in some areas and attenuated in others (as could
    happen if the majority of the majority is not equally much a
    majority of the whole)."

re: "That doesn't mean that there's no signal, though, and where
      that signal does exist, it should not be averaged out of
      existence or amplified in some areas and attenuated in
      others ..."

I agree, but believe the signal is strongest during the selection phase. 
  That is when people focus their attention on their "priorities of in 
what direction to take society" and select the people they believe will 
lead them in that direction.

re: "I think you should be careful not to go to the other
      extreme, too."

That must always be a concern.  However, the method incorporates the 
safeguard of careful scrutiny during repetitive elections and a simple 
means for adding other safeguards such as mandatory consultation and recall.



re: (regarding types of bias) "... the bias I'm talking about is
     a distortion of the wishes of the people. A method that fails
     mutual majority might pick a candidate where a majority
     prefers one of a set that candidate isn't in, for instance;
     and more concretely, Plurality squeezes out the center and
     provides incentives for two-party rule."

We agree in our opposition to two-party rule.  The method we are 
discussing operates independent of parties.  I'm not sure you agree it 
does so in a satisfactory manner but, if not, I can't pinpoint how you 
feel partisanship will retain dominance.



re: "That means that your system acts less quickly to change."

Yes, I think that's true.  The question is whether or not that's a good 
thing.  I believe it is.

In the first place, our lives should be governed by what most of us 
want, not the wishes of a raucous minority.  In the second place, 
nothing in the process impedes the normal functioning of partisanship. 
Groups of like-minded people can still persuade the majority to accept 
their view.

The two vital parts of the process are the guarantee that holders of 
every view have an opportunity to persuade their peers of the wisdom of 
their perceptions and the critical evaluations that take place at each 
level.  These features enhance the probability that beneficial changes 
will be adopted.



re: "What I meant was that even if the majority were (by some
      miracle) nonpartisan, parties would form out of necessity.
      Plurality simply can't support a horde of independents. As
      such, Plurality encourages the formation of parties, and of
      parties to coalesce until there are two main blocks -- even
      in the best case (where near-nobody is partisan), the nature
      of Plurality, the method itself, shapes the results, meaning
      that it definitely does so under less ideal conditions, such
      as in the world today.

Whoops!  I think I just grasped what you're saying.  You're not talking 
about the method by which candidates are selected. You're talking about 
the way they are elected after they are selected.  There are several 
aspects to my response.

1) The dichotomy arises because the original draft was a method of 
selecting representatives, not candidates.  My associate in the U. K. 
who plans to petition his Council to adopt the method, asked that we 
change the proposal to be a nominating method rather than an electoral 
method because that is the most he feels can be accomplished at present. 
  The proposal, as amended to suit the needs of the Sefton petition, is 
what I posted on this site.  In spite of that, I've continued to think 
of and discuss the process as I originally drafted it; as an election 
method.  There is a profound difference between seeking an office and 
holding an office and my remarks have failed to note the distinction.

2) The process, as described in the Sefton petition, will produce two 
candidates from one ward, for election to a 66-member Council.  The idea 
is that the people of the Church ward will choose one of the two 
candidates to represent them.  However, the issue is clouded because 
there will almost certainly be other candidates nominated by the present 
establishment.  The following comments are based on the (invalid) 
assumption that the only candidates are those nominated by the process.

Since the process is not carried to election, partisans and vested 
interests will certainly try to 'capture' the candidates.  After the 
candidates are selected, interested organizations will support one or 
the other of the candidates as in line with their goals and influence 
others to elect that candidate.  Although the candidates, as selected, 
are beholden to no-one, it is likely they will, in the natural pursuit 
of their own interest, seek the endorsement of partisan groups in order 
to insure their election.  In doing so, they will undoubtedly promise to 
support the goals of their supporters without regard to the public interest.

If this is the prognosis (and I believe it is), I agree with you.  The 
results will be unacceptable.  What that tells me is that the process 
must be carried on through election.

3) If the process is carried on through election, candidate's have no 
need for the support of vested interests or partisans.  Indeed, they 
need to be seen as free of such influences.  Thus, their self-interest 
dictates that they maintain their integrity.  After election, they will 
be beholden to no-one, they will have attained their seats on their own 
merit.  That is a powerful stimulant for rectitude.

4) Partisanship will continue to function.  Our representatives will, as 
we all do, align themselves with other representatives who have similar 
views.  The huge difference is that they are not 'owned' by their 
supporters.  They will choose their associates freely rather than under 
compulsion.  They achieve their position on their merits and that gives 
them the confidence to stand on the principles that raised them to office.

Vested interests and partisan groups will attempt to suborn them after 
they are elected.  That is an eventuality we can not ignore and must, at 
some point, discuss in detail.  For now, though, we can assert that our 
representatives are not 'bought and paid for' before they are elected.



re: "My fixes to the system would be to have a somewhat larger
      council size and use a PR method to pick more than one
      representative/delegate to the next level."

Regarding the PR method you mention, can you give me something specific 
on this point so I can consider it?  The suggested method has three 
people selecting one of their number to advance.  Can you describe how 
you would alter this?



re: "This weakens your aim, which is to retain the experienced
      who can convince others ..."

I'm sorry, but that is not my aim.  My aim is to improve the quality of 
the individuals we elect to represent us in our government.  The party 
system elevates unprincipled people, by design.  The prime requisite for 
a party politician is the willingness and ability to 'sell his soul' for 
election.  There is not a single flaw in our government that can't be 
traced directly to the corruption of the people we elect to represent us.

My goal is to change that.  My aim is for people to evaluate each other 
with regard to their views on matters of public interest.  That is the 
reason for making odinances and budgets available to the triads.  We can 
not guarantee they will discuss these matters ... they might spend their 
time playing cards ... but it provides a focus and improves the 
likelihood that they will.  In fact, those who don't wish to discuss 
these matters can be seen to be poor prospects for public office.

In the later stages, candidates have three and four weeks to evaluate 
each other (I recommend they be given facilities for associating with 
each other ... offices in which to meet and recreational facilities ... 
so they can evaluate each other in various settings and circumstances.) 
  Ultimately, when they are required to select one of their number to 
advance, they will not be making their decision based on propaganda, 
innuendo or hearsay.  They will make their decision based on the best 
judgment they've been able to form about the people they have been 
associating with for several weeks.



re: "... the problem, that legitimate shades of the people's idea
      of how society should be run would otherwise be excluded ..."

This runs up against the everlasting question of "Who decides which are 
'legitimate shades of the people's idea of how society should be run'?" 
  I submit the people others have decided are the best spokespeople for 
their views are the most logical people to make such decisions.  The 
repetitive nature of elections insures that the topic is constantly 
re-visited.  Personally, I'd favor annual election cycles, but every two 
years wouldn't be bad.



re: "The exact size of the council would have to be found out by
      either trying, or by reasoning. I understand the reason for
      picking three, as you gave in your earlier post, so it's
      likely that inreasing the council size would make it less of
      a discussion and more formal, which we don't want."

I'm not certain of this, but I believe you are using the word 'council' 
to mean what I refer to when I say 'triad'.  Changing the term stems 
from the desire for a larger group size, so 'triad' would be 
inappropriate.  If I'm wrong in this, what follows is invalid.

As you note, I've explained the rationale for settling on a group size 
of three.  In addition, I think the size should be an odd number to 
reduce the chance of deadlock and it should be appropriate in any 
electoral jurisdiction, whether district, municipality, county, parish, 
precinct, state, nation, township, or ward.  You do not feel three is an 
optimum size, but I'm not clear on why you feel that way.  Can you 
describe the purpose of increasing the size?



re: "What we'd need would be to understand how quickly the
      council degrades as its size increases, in comparison to the
      gains elsewhere (in accuracy and in agreement)."

This is an area where you appear to have some expertise.  Do you think 
it's possible to build a simulation which incorporates the reticence of 
many people to speak up in the face of multiple people?  These are the 
very people who may have insight into the 'legitimate shades of the 
people's idea of how society should be run'.  If they are to be heard, 
they must have an environment in which they can speak freely.  There's a 
better than even chance they will gain courage when they find their 
views acceptable, even applauded, in small groups.

May I also note my conviction that increased size will not result in 
gains in accuracy and in agreement.  I am not convinced that one person 
can reflect the views of eight people from a group of nine (for example) 
people any better than, and perhaps not as well as, one person can 
reflect the views of two people.  I think your point is that, at a 
subsequent level, one person is, indeed, selected to reflect the views 
of eight people, but four of those people did not express their views to 
the person selected.

Diagramatically,

           a
     a     b     c
    ade   bfg   chi

where 'd' and 'e' select 'a', 'f' and 'g' select 'b', 'h' and 'i' select 
'c', and at the next level, 'b' and 'c' select 'a', 'a' represents the 
eight people, 'bcdefghi'.  I believe you are suggesting it might be 
better if the nine people selected their representative directly.

        a
    abcdefghi

In my tentative opinion (pending your analysis), I think a minority 
opinion held by 'g' (for example) has a greater chance of influencing 
the selection ... and the opinions ... of 'a' by 'g's influence on 'b' 
than 'g' has of influencing 'a' directly, when 'g' must compete with 
'bcdef' and 'hi'.  One reason I think so is that 'b' is a better 
spokesperson than 'g'.  That's why 'b' is selected to speak for 'f' and 'g'.

Stated another way, it appears to me the competition of ideas faces 
greater obstacles in larger groups.  When 'g' is one of nine people, the 
minority view must be offered in the face of greater opposition.  Not 
only is 'g' less likely to speak, but 'g's voice is more apt to be 
stifled by the disagreeing majority.

Note also that, although I've shown 'b' as the selection of the group 
'bfg', if 'g's presentation of the minority view is compelling, and 'g's 
personality is not averse to advancement, 'g' may be selected to 
advance, and, at the next level, 'g's presentation faces less 
competition (in terms of voices) and a greater chance of acceptance.



re: "... there is still a limit to how wide a span a single
      representative can hold - how many different solutions he
      can contemplate and argue in favor of - so the method (and
      any method) will still exhibit a quantization of the ideas
      of the people, and the same question returns; is it worse or
      better than other methods?"

An extremely inportant factor in determining the "span a single 
representative can hold" is the openness of the representative's mind. 
Representatives selected ideologically are, by definition, 
narrow-minded.  If our method produces representatives with more open 
minds (as it is specifically designed to do) the span of concepts they 
can entertain is much broader, naturally.



re: "(And also, is the quantization biased so that the method may
      give feedback like the two-party entrenchment of Plurality?)"

So far, I've seen no reason to imagine that it will.  The process does 
not deny the existence of partisanship but avoids it by focusing on 
issues facing the community.  That one's ideological bent affects one's 
view of those issues is a given, but the issue won't be decided on 
ideological grounds but on the practicality and persuasiveness of the 
proponent's arguments.




re: "... if the councilmembers can hold many opinions, or a range
      of opinions, and deliberate among those, the effect of
      exclusion is significantly reduced, but it'll still be
      there, and it may or may not still exhibit the "shaving off
      significant, but thinly spread, areas of opinion" effect,
      only with ranges of opinion taking the place of stick-man
      type "either you're with us or without us" opinions. I don't
      know whether it would, since it'd depend not only on the
      system, but also on the integrity of the councilmembers."

It is not practical, possible or desirable to represent all the opinions 
extant.  Whether a suggestion is significant depends on the views of 
those who hear it as well as the persuasiveness with which it is 
presented.  Furthermore, its significance varies with its practicality 
at the time it is offered.  That which is impractical during one 
election may be practical during the next.

The point is that significant opinions can (and will) be offered in 
every election and the random selection of group members insures the 
view will be presented to a wide sprectrum of the electorate.  The fact 
that the opinions are offered and discussed will influence the outcome, 
depending on the multitude of factors surrounding it.  We can not 
guarantee that all opinions will be accepted.  All we can do is provide 
an environment in which all opinions will be heard.

The integrity issue is paramount.  To quote something I once heard:

     "... in looking for people to hire, you look for three
      qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. And if they
      don't have the first, the other two will kill you."

Several considerations led me to the method I've described, but assuring 
the integrity of our representatives was foremost among them.

The question of integrity is subjective.  We can never truly know what's 
in another person's heart.  Neither can we know how they will act in the 
face of various challenges.  All we can do is give ourselves a way to 
evaluate each candidate's qualities over a sufficiently long period of 
time to make a reasonably accurate judgment.  Doing so repeatedly, with 
ever more interested people, may not guarantee that we'll never select 
an unprincipled individual, but the chances are incomparably better than 
letting oligarchic party leaders make the selection for us.



re: "The councilmember could lie his way to the top. This could
      be softened by recall; in some proposed council democracies,
      the councils are permanent and a majority at level (n-1) can
      recall a council at level n, but even with only the
      population to have recall at the end of the process, it
      would weaken the incentive to lie."

The councilmember that achieves selection (election) by duplicity 
becomes (except for offices such as mayor, governor, president, or other 
singularity) a member of a parliament, a town council, a diet, a 
congress, or some such body.  I submit their effect on the body will be 
small, but that is only conjecture.  The point is that such individuals 
can be the spoiled apples that rot the barrel.  That may be true, but it 
takes time.  It has taken over 200 years for our existing barrel to 
reach its present stench.  A fresh barrel will give us time to devise an 
even better method.



re: "The closest example to councils of councils, that I know of,
      with the attendant objection that councilmembers are not
      accountable to the people because they can't be revoked, is
      the Commission of the European Union. The Commission is made
      up of members elected by the state governments, which are in
      turn elected by the people; or even with one additional link
      of indirection, through a parliament. Now, the analogy might
      be weak, since the EC is limited by the effects of the
      systems used to elect the intermediate steps, and possibly
      also by the partisanship incentives you've talked about
      earlier; and the "councils" are much larger than your triads
      as well; but that's the closest we have. If the EC is a good
      example, then accountability is going to be a problem."

I am not competent to offer an opinion on the Commission of the European 
Union.  The electoral method(s) you describe do suggest that 
accountability would be a problem.  As we've discussed here, it would be 
trivial to add a recall capability to the Practical Democracy process. 
I think it also worth noting that there are alternatives short of 
recall.  Even though my personal preference is to allow our 
representatives use their judgment, the inherent bi-directionality of 
the process allows direct transmission of questions on specific issues 
to and from the electors.  It gives us the means of guiding our 
representatives.



re: "What happens if a triad is unable to agree upon a candidate?
      Would it then be done by vote, random selection within the
      council, or is that councilmember's position undetermined
      and filled randomly at the next level?"

This question must be considered before implementation.  My personal 
preference is that the triad be disqualified.  If the members of the 
triad are so inflexible that they can not select one of their number as 
the best choice of the group, they lack the qualities we need in our 
leaders.  If they are willing to disqualify themselves rather than make 
a selection, we should grant them their wish.  If this happens at the 
final level, where a selection is mandatory, I'd suggest we form a new 
triad by a random selection of three unselected people from the previous 
level.



re: (with regard to the bi-directional nature of the process) "To
      briefly repeat what I've said, I think bidirectionality is
      going to be particularly important here, simply because the
      method contains multiple elections (one for each level), not
      just one, so the bidirectionality is not just from the final
      to the people, but to all the other levels as well. Thus, if
      there's a dilution of responsibility that must be
      compensated for by bidirectionality, that dilution happens
      multiple times, and so the compensation has to be all the
      stronger."

I believe we agree on the importance of bi-directionality.  Can I take 
it that you mean by the latter part of your comment that the elected 
official must be responsible to all those whose choices resulted in his 
ultimate selection ... the entire chain of people from the first level 
to the last?  That is my view, and I believe it to be yours as well.



re: (with regard to the diagrammatic depiction of a single-axis
      division of the electorate) "The relevance of this problem
      as regards the council democracy / triad system is that the
      "l" and "r" voters are majorities, but neither L (the
      majority choice of the l-majority) nor R (the majority
      choice of the r-majority) is a good candidate. This shows
      how the true center may be eliminated for opinion ranges
      (not binary opinions) in a kind of real-valued variant of
      vote-splitting.

      If the council deliberation works similar to Condorcet, the
      effect will be weakened, since a Condorcet election with a
      middle candidate inserted above (at 0.5) would elect the
      middle candidate:
        40: L > M > R    (left-wing group)
        10: M > R > L    (middle group)
        40: R > M > L    (right-wing group)
      and M is the Condorcet Winner.

      The effect might happen between councils, though, even if
      they don't happen (or happen only weakly) inside councils."

I'm sorry, but I do not understand the comment.  My lack of 
understanding may flow from my inability to envision the political 
aspirations of humans as a single-axis phenomenon.  Indeed, that was the 
reason for my intial comment to Brian Olsen, on this thread.  As well as 
I can understand the description, it presumes the most important 
question in an election is whether the left-wing group, the middle 
group, or the right-wing group will triumph.  From my perspective, the 
only important question is whether or not the people triumph.



re: "Confidence in their position is a good thing, as long as
      that projection does not lead from confidence to
      overconfidence and detachment from those groups of the
      people that do not share the councils' positions. Since a
      majority is transformed into near-consensus as the
      candidates/councilmembers bubble up through the levels, the
      effect would probably be more severe the further up the
      levels you got, and the more levels there are in general."

Detachment from the will of the people will invoke, at the very least, 
rejection during the next candidate selection process.  Clearly, limits 
on terms of office are important, so officials are obliged to stay in 
touch with their constituents.

This raises a side issue that should be considered at some time, 
although probably not right now:  Re-election is by no means assured 
and, possibly, uncommon.  I anticipate a high turnover rate because the 
process is extremely sensitive to changing conditions.  That's a good 
thing for the people.  However, if that's the case, we must provide 
something similar to the G. I. Bill of Rights (used in the U. S. to help 
military people rebuild their civilian lives after discharge) for public 
officials who are not returned to office.



re: "... I've been considering similar ideas, myself; such as
      laws having a sunset that depends on how great a majority
      passed it, or on a president having a variable-time term
      depending on his victory margin."

I enjoyed your suggestions for improving governance.  Several of them 
hadn't occurred to me and are worthy of careful thought.

There are, in my view. three fundamental things wrong with our political 
system:  The way we maintain our laws, the way we tax, and the way we 
select those who represent us in our government.  Unfortunately, it will 
be impossible to improve the first two until we change the last.



I've been wondering ... do you think it would be possible to build a 
table of points with some kind of 'rate of acceptance' for each of us, 
and carry it forward from post to post?  If we can find a way to do it, 
it will help us identify our areas of disagreement and allow focus on 
the most thorny parts.

Fred