[EM] language/framing quibble

[Raph Frank]

On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke at verizon.net> wrote:
> Good Afternoon, Raph
>
> re: "A person who wants to be selected would try to convince the
>     other 2 to support him, even if he thinks one of them would
>     be better.
>
>     This is the conflict of interests."
>
> Of course a person who wants to be selected will try to attract the support
> of the other two.  That is how people who want to be selected gain
> advancement.  As the levels move forward and the group members, who all want
> to be selected, interact with each other, the relationships become more
> dynamic.  Each will be attentive to nuances they can exploit to advance
> their own interest.  At the same time, they will gauge their peers.  Their
> perceptions about each will run the gamut from 'absolutely not' to 'I don't
> think so' to 'maybe' to 'absolutely' and will shift as they gain insights
> into the qualities of the others.

Well, the person can still try to convince the judges, the point is
that he doesn't act as judge of his own fitness.  Basically, the six
people would meet up and then after, the judging triad would meet up.

>
> You said elsewhere that your "... big concern is the incentive to
> participate".  I submit that the possibility of being selected or
> influencing the selection is an outstanding incentive to participate."

You still get to do that.  You just have to convince the judging triad
to nominate you for the next level.

Also, the issue I was dealing with in the above quote was for
non-compulsory associations.  If people don't have to participate (and
everyone has to follow the law), then why bother.

> If a group is unable to make a selection, doesn't that show none of the
> members had the qualities we seek in our leaders?  If not one of the three
> could persuade two people of their suitability for advancement, how could
> any of them represent a multitude?

That is true, it would cause a stalemate if there was 2 people who
really wanted to be promoted.

However, if only one of them really wants to be promoted, then he is
likely to win by putting his foot down.

Is a 'no compromise' person the type that we want to get elected?

> One of the powerful forces that motivates humans is the pursuit of
> self-interest.  Its influence is pervasive and affects both our economic and
> our political existence.  It should be evident that the unbridled pursuit of
> self-interest is not beneficial for society.  If we are to improve our
> political system, one of our first concerns must be to harness our tendency
> to pursue our own interest.

Under the normal system, people who really want to be elected tend to
be the ones who get elected.  Isn't that the 'bug' that random
selection was supposed to solve?

> It does so by allowing everyone to seek public office, but creating an
> environment where candidates are carefully examined by people with a vital
> interest in the office they seek.  The fact that the examination is
> conducted by people who also want the position is crucial.  After all, who
> can we rely on to insure that a candidate's pursuit of self-interest is not
> detrimental to the public interest than someone who's own self-interest is
> intimately involved in the process.  Who better to establish a candidate's
> bona fides than someone who wants the same job?

Hmm, not so sure it would work out that way.  However, it might be the
case that stalemates eliminate most of the people who are only in it
for their own best interests.