[EM] language/framing quibble

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Morning, Raph

re: (With regard to the suggestion that the process 'Have one
      triad judge the other'):

     "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."

This raises multiple points:

First, self-judgment is not germane.  The issue is not what we think of 
ourselves but what others think of us.  Whatever we may think of 
ourselves, if we cannot attract the support of others, our self-regard 
is meaningless.  As a practical matter, I would recommend that we not be 
allowed to select ourselves; our role should simply be to select one of 
the two people we're grouped with, or neither.


Second, the remote nature of selecting candidates from another triad 
eliminates responsibility for one's actions.  If one is inordinately 
aggressive in examining members of a different triad, they pay no 
penalty for undue aggressiveness.

Conversely, if one is aggressive in examining members of one's own 
triad, that attitude will influence the others' selection.  In such an 
event, there are at least two possible effects for an aggressive examiner:

1) the examination fails to reveal a flaw in the examinee and is deemed 
inappropriate, to the examinee's advantage and the examiner's 
disadvantage, or

2) the examination reveals a flaw in the examinee, in which case the 
examination is deemed appropriate and the examiner is seen to be perceptive.

We sacrifice such nuances at our peril.


Third, having one triad select a representative from another triad 
introduces an unnecessary level of complexity:

* It is not clear whether

   a) triad 'A' selects from triad 'B' and triad 'B' selects from
      triad 'A', or

   b) triad 'A' selects from triad 'B', triad 'B' selects from
      triad 'x', and triad 'y' selects from triad 'A'

The (a) option may raise questions, but I haven't considered the 
possibility in sufficient detail to be sure.  The balance of this 
comment assumes the (b) option, which is deemed the better of the two:

* The concept demands triads be paired, which requires an even number of 
triads.  Since there may not be an even number of triads, we have the 
problem of providing an equitable arrangement for the odd triad.

* If members of one triad must make a selection from members of another 
triad, there are three people, each evaluating three people instead of 
the proposed arrangement where three people each evaluate two people. 
This increases the evaluation load for each participant by 50%.  Since 
there is a limited time in which evaluation must be completed, 
increasing the number of evaluation targets must reduce the depth and 
effectiveness of each individual's evaluation.


Finally, we are discussing a concept.  The actual implementation can be 
expected to differ from the design for a variety of reasons, some 
practical and some ideological.  I will continue to provide a rationale 
for my perspective.  Whether or not that rationale is compelling is for 
those who implement the concept to decide.



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

Although I personally prefer that participation be mandatory, I don't 
think it matters greatly.

* If none of the three people in the initial triad wish to participate, 
they don't and the triad expires without a selection.

* If two of the three people in the initial triad wish to participate, 
they can select one or the other to advance, or request a new third 
member to complete the triad, or they can make no selection, in which 
case the triad expires.

* If only one of the three people wants to participate, that person can 
report him- or herself as the selection of the triad.  If either or both 
of the other members of the original triad object to this default 
self-selection, they must participate to prevent it.

In all cases, the original triad produces one selection or no 
selections.  Since the goal is to find people who seek election to 
public office and then select the best of them, the process has 
functioned as intended.



re: "... it would cause a stalemate if there was 2 people who
      really wanted to be promoted."

The basic premise is that, after the first few levels, all members of 
the group "really want to be promoted".  That's why they reach their 
current level.  If a stalemate results, it is productive because 
eliminates candidates who cannot attract the support of two people.



re: "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?"

How, exactly, is that person to 'put his foot down'?  In an environment 
where we are free to choose, others can earn our support ... but they 
cannot command it.  Any attempt by someone to 'put their foot down' will 
alienate the others, who are under no compulsion to be trod upon.  Our 
own nature ensures 'no compromise' candidates will be among the first 
eliminated.



re: "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?"

No. No. No. No. No.

We want people who want to be elected.

The 'bug' we seek to eliminate is the low quality of the people 
nominated as candidates to represent us in our government.  If we are to 
improve society, our first step must be to improve the quality of those 
we select to represent us in our government.

Fred