[EM] language/framing quibble

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Afternoon, Kristofer

re: "This sounds a lot like what I've previously referred to as
     'council democracy'."

I hadn't heard that term before or seen the proposal.  I wonder if the 
concepts can be merged, perhaps by an analytical critique of the processes.



re: "The first problem of council democracy is that it magnifies
      opinion in a possibly chaotic manner."

This is, I suspect, a function of the size of the 'council'.  The larger 
it is, the less opportunity each member has to help form its view.

An aspect of this question that troubles me is the backward-looking 
nature of opinion.  Government is (or, at least, ought to be) concerned 
with the present and the future.  We should prize our representatives' 
ability to address contemporary concerns with all the resources at our 
command rather than apply pre-conceived solutions to new, and possibly 
unknown, circumstances.  In other words, opinion must be subject to 
intellect.



re: "In the very worst case, an opinion held by (2/3)8 = 4% can
      be held by a majority of the last triad."

I lack the expertise to evaluate the math, but I don't understand the 
point for a different reason:  Is 'an opinion ... held by a majority of 
the last triad' not but one of a multitude of such opinions?  Does a 
person's value rest on a single opinion or on the mix of opinions that 
define the person?  Indeed, is their value not better determined by 
their ability to implement whatever mix of opinions we perceive them to 
have?



re: "... but the point holds: because the comparisons are local,
      disproportionality can accumulate."

I'm not clear on this point.  By 'local', do you mean that the 
participants are from a distinct locality?  That is certainly true at 
the very lowest levels, but the distinction blurs as the levels advance. 
  I'm not sure what will be disproportionate.



re: "One could reduce the first problem by having a larger group
      that elects more than one member."

The question of group size is worthy of considerable thought.  Rather 
than extend this message, I will post a message titled 'DELIBERATIVE 
GROUP SIZE and PERSUASION' so we can focus on the issues separately.



re: "The minimum possible opinion that can attain a majority here
      has (4/5)9 = 13.4% support among the people."

Is that a valid assertion?  I fear I'm missing some part of the point. 
If a candidate feels murder is a felony, if there any reason the 
candidate could not have 100% support on that opinion among the 
electorate?  Perhaps more important (to me) is the belief that we should 
want our candidates to represent the best interest of all the people 
rather than a subset of them that happen to hold some opinion.

Fred