[EM] language/framing quibble

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Morning, Kristofer

Thanks for the link.  I'll check it as soon as I can.

re: "If the council is of size 7, no opinion that holds less than
      1/7 of the voters can be represented, so if the opinion is
      spread too thin, it'll be removed from the system; but if
      you have an extreme of a single layer with PR, elected
      nationally, then the number is much lower."

If an opinion is not held by the majority of the electorate, what is the 
rationale (from the point of view of a democratic society) for not 
removing it from the system?

Holders of minority views who wish their view to gain ascendancy have an 
obligation to persuade the majority of their compatriots that their 
(currently minority) view is advantageous for all the people.  If they 
can not do so, they have no 'inherent right' to representation in a 
democratic government.

The problem of democracy is not to provide representation for minority 
views, it is to select representatives with the judgment and intellect 
to contemplate minority views in a rational fashion.  The only reason 
this seems improper is that we have been subject to partisan rule for so 
long it's difficult to see beyond partisanship and the contentious 
society it produces.  A wise electorate will realize their best 
interests are served by electing people with the wit and wisdom to 
listen to, consider, and, when appropriate, accept fresh points of view.



re: "... each reduction of many triads to one triad has to, by some
      measure, aggregate minority opinion."

I'm not sure the word 'minority' is proper.  I think it would be better 
to say 'aggregate public opinion'.



re: "In the worst case, only the majority counts ... and the minority
      preference ... gets shaved off."

Why is that the 'worst' case?  This seems to lead back to my original 
comment on this thread to the effect that there is less interest in 
democracy than in schemes to empower minorities.



re: "Since the reduction is exponential, even more gets shaved off at
      each instance, and these slices may in the end constitute a
      majority."

This assertion seems based on the assumption that because someone 
inclines toward a given view they are incapable of responding to any 
other view.  People are not like that.  Political views are a continuum. 
  They range from one side to the other and from mild to extreme.  The 
method we are discussing will reject extremes and advance people with a 
broader perspective.  The attempt to preserve the 'slices' overlooks the 
improvement in the quality of the people selected to advance and their 
ability to grasp and be responsive to the advocates of those 'slices'.



re: "There's a question that has a yes or no answer. The concils are set
      up like this:

      L1  YYN YYN NNN
           |   |   |
           Y   Y   N
           |   |   |
           +---+---+
      L2      YYN

      Here there are four ayes that overrule the five nays, simply
      because they're better positioned. If you look at the second level,
      it even seems like the ayes have 2/3 of the public support, when
      that is clearly not the case."

One can construct a scenario to support virtually any thesis, but 
there's no reason to imagine such a result would occur throughout an 
entire electorate.  Using the Church Ward in Sefton (from the Practical 
Democracy description) as an example, there are 9,000 people in the 
ward.  At level 1, they constitute 3,000 triads.  If the N's have the 5 
to 4 advantage shown in your example, there are 5,000 N's and 4,000 Y's 
in the ward.  It is difficult to describe a circumstance that would 
produce a result with a preponderance of Y's.



re: "one should take into consideration Parkinson's observation about
      committees of varying size"

I shall attempt to digest the Parkinson idea.



re: "... the least minority that can end up with a majority of the final
      triad 'representatives' is one that holds an opinion shared by
      13.4% of the people."

I do not believe that to be true.  Opinions, like ideologies, are only 
"Y/N" at the extremes.  The vast majority of people are not at the 
extremes.  Their views vary in intensity and change with circumstances.

Ideas and opinions are not static, lifeless things.  They are the 
essence of humanity.  In terms of the Practical Democracy we're 
discussing, the rawest, tiniest seed can be implanted in an individual 
at a low level, germinate in succeeding levels, be tested in later 
levels, and appear full-grown in the final phase.  Indeed, that very 
development may be a prime factor in the individual's advancement.  To 
imagine that, because humans have opinions, they must bear them like 
crosses their whole lives (or throughout an election cycle) is a 
grievous error.

Fred