[EM] language/framing quibble

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Morning, Kristofer

There is so much good material in your message that, instead of 
responding to all of it, I'm going to select bits and pieces and comment 
on them, one at a time, until I've responded to all of them.  I hope 
this will help us focus on specific parts of the complex topic we're 
discussing.  For today, I'm going to concentrate on two of your comments 
regarding group (or council) size:

1) "Have a council of seven. Use a PR method like STV to pick
     four or five. These go to the next level. That may exclude
     opinions held by fewer than two of the seven, but it's better
     than 50%-1. If you can handle a larger council, have one of
     size 12 that picks 9; if seven is too many, a group of five
     that elects two.

     For small groups like this, it might be possible to make a
     simpler PR method than STV, but I'm not sure how.

2) "It's more like (if we elect three out of nine and it's
     always the second who wins -- to make the diagram easier)

                 e  n  w            Level 2
                behknqtwz           Level 1

       b  e  h   k  n  q   t  w  z  Level 1
      abcdefghi jklmnopqr stuvwxyzA Level 0

     The horizon for all the subsequent members (behknqtwz) is
     wider than would be the case if they were split up into
     groups of three. In this example, each person at a level
     "represents" three below him, just like what would be the
     case if you had groups of two, but, and this is the
     important part, they have input from the entire group of
     eight instead of just three. Thus some may represent all the
     views of less than three, while others represent some of the
     views of more than three. The latter type would be excluded,
     or at least heavily attenuated, in the triad case."

For convenience, I'll work with a group size of 9 picking 3 by a form of 
proportional representation:

Am I correct in imagining the process would function by having each of 
the 9 people rank the other 8 in preferential order and then resolve the 
preferences to select the 3 people that are most preferred by the 9?

That seems like a really good idea.  It is, however, a new idea for me, 
so it may take me some time to digest all the ramifications of the 
concept.  Even so, the first thoughts that leap to mind are:

1) It would allow voting secrecy.  In a group size of 3 selecting 1, 
secrecy is not possible; a selection can only be made if 2 of the three 
agree on the selection.  Many people say secrecy is important.  For my 
part, I'm not sure.  It may be important in the kind of electoral 
process we have now, but I'm not sure open agreement of free people is 
not a better option.

2) It reduces the potential for confrontation that would be likely to 
characterize 3-person groups.  We can make the argument that, in the 
selection of representatives, confrontation is a good thing.  Seeing how 
individuals react in tense situations gives us great insight into their 
ability to represent our interests.  We can also make the argument that 
a pressure-cooker environment is hard on the participants.

3) Each participant's opportunity to evaluate each other participant is 
reduced; they must evaluate 8 people in the allotted time instead of two.

4) There is a greater likelihood that, over an evaluation period of 1 to 
4 weeks, the group members will tend to form cliques and will be 
influenced by their compatriots instead of relying on their own judgment.

It takes me such a long time to examine new concepts, I'd like to see 
what objections are raised to both alternatives to be sure I've 
considered all the possibilities.

On re-reading this, I see I haven't addressed your concern; the 
propagation of minority sentiment.  I'm not sure I can.  My problem may 
be that I don't see viewpoints as isolated entities.  They are part of a 
whole, but are not, in and of themselves, the whole.  I do not believe 
that, just because a viewpoint exists, it is entitled to a role in our 
government.  To be adopted, a viewpoint must be shown to have merit. 
People of judgment will accept different viewpoints if they are 
presented in a rational and compelling manner.  I think the issues that 
should concern us are the integrity and the judgment of the people we 
ask to represent us.  If we have people of good judgment, we need not 
fear that a valid viewpoint will be ignored.

Fred