[EM] language/framing quibble

[Raph Frank]

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke at verizon.net> wrote:
> The initial phase of the process is dominated by participants with little
> interest in advancing to higher levels.  They do not seek public office;
> they simply wish to pursue their private lives in peace.  Thus, the most
> powerful human dynamic during the first phase (i.e., Level 1 and for some
> levels thereafter) is a desire by the majority of the participants to select
> someone who will represent them.  The person so selected is more apt to be
> someone who is willing to take on the responsibility of going to the next
> level than someone who actively seeks elevation to the next level, but those
> who do actively seek elevation are not inhibited from doing so.

You have created a conflict of interests here.  People who don't set
aside their own ambition are favoured.

What about pairing up the triads.  The six people get together and
each triad then picks one from the other triad to progress.

When making the selection, each person would be free to make it
without considering their own desire to be selected.

Another option would be to create a chain of triads.  Triad one would
judge triad two and triad two would judge triad 3 and so on.

All the 'get to know each other' meetings would happen first, and then
each triad would meet to decide for who they nominate.

> Each participant must make a choice between the other two people in the
> triad knowing they must rely on that person's integrity to guide their
> future actions and decisions.  Since they are unable to control the person
> selected, they must choose the person they believe most likely to conduct
> public business in the public interest.

This is an advantage and a disadvantage.  It means that the
legislature is controlled in advance rather than once their term has
been completed.

> However, they do not make their choices blindly.  Elections are a periodic
> process.  The majority of those seeking candidacy will do so each time the
> process recurs.  Some will achieve public office and their performance will
> be a matter of public record.  When they participate in subsequent
> occurrences of the process, their peers will evaluate that record to help
> them decide the candidate's suitability.

I am not so sure it would be easy to be re-elected.  All that needs to
happen is you lose one triad of 10-15.

> Hence, a powerful new human dynamic, the pursuit of self-interest, is
> integrated into the system:  Those who seek public office find it in their
> own best interest to maintain their integrity.

Well, it is in their interests to hide their lack of integrity :).

> Other features of face-to-face meetings in three-person triads are that they
> allow participants to observe the non-verbal clues humans emit during
> discourse, they tend to favor moderate attitudes over extremism, and the
> dissimulation and obfuscation that are so effective in media-based politics
> will not work in a group of three people, each of whom has a vital interest
> in reaching the same goal as the miscreant. Instead, advancement depends on
> candidates' ability and persuasiveness, perceived trustworthiness, and the
> probity with which they fulfilled any public obligations.

There is potential for conmen here.  However, I think the lower chance
of actually succeeding means that it is possibly not worth the effort.

> The cost of conducting an election by this method is free to the
> participants, except for the value of their time, and minimal to the
> government.  Thus, it removes the greatest single cause of corruption in
> politics ... the need for campaign funds.

Right.

One of the differences between this and the method I was proposing is
that the each person would nominate someone they knew rather than a
random person.

This means that they will have more knowledge about the person from
non-related contact.