[EM] language/framing quibble

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Afternoon, Raph

re: "However, under your system, they (minority views) do get
      represented in the "level 1" triads.  What they lose is the
      having high level representatives."

Ahhhhh.  Now we're at the crux of the matter ...

Whether or not a minority view retains high level representatives 
depends on how well the holder of the minority view is able to persuade 
others of the validity and desirability of the minority view.  The 
system guarantees that each and every view will have an audience, but 
nothing, absolutely nothing, can make that view worthy of representation 
except compelling advocacy.



re: "However, since your proposal is for a council rather than
      the Parliament, then this is not as much an issue."

The proposal I posted was drafted for a specific Council.  The concept 
is equally appropriate for selecting representatives for any legislature.



re: "The worst case is that all except a minority view gets
      removed."

Can you explain how that could occur?



 > A dedicated minority could easily take control of the system.
 > This doesn't necessarily mean that they are organised, just a
 > bloc that holds a strong viewpoint.
 >
 > A dedicated religious group could fall into that category.  If
 > they represented 25% of the population and used a veto any
 > appointment unless you are selected strategy, then they would be
 > well represented in the next stage.
 >
 > The odds of a triad having at least one of them is 58%.  Assume
 > that half of them get through and the other half they veto, then
 > they will represent 29% in the 2nd round.  The remaining 41% will
 > be people outside the bloc (though maybe lower as there could be
 > vetoes there too).  29 out of 71 is 41%, so they have increased
 > their share from 25 to 41% (65% increase).
 >
 > In round 2, 41% gets them a member in 79% of the triads.
 > Assuming the same results, that gives them 39.5% through against
 > 21% other.  Thus in 2 steps they have a 65% majority.
 >
 > Repeated over 10 rounds would increase their share to nearly 100%.
 >
 > Now this is also true with standard election methods.  People can
 > stand for election on false pretenses and then do things that are
 > not supported by the public. However, the more levels, the more
 > chance of it happening.

That's subjective.  The math is neither objective nor reasonable.

The argument based on the concept of a 'veto' is invalid.  In a triad, 
it takes two to make a selection.  If a zealot refuses to agree to a 
selection (i.e., 'vetoes' it) the triad will be unable to make a 
selection (I cannot believe rational people will vote for a zealot who 
refuses to participate).  If there is no selection the bigot cannot advance.

Triads are made up of human beings intent on finding the best of their 
number to act as their representatives.  To suggest they will select 
bigots is preposterous.  The reality is that bigots, religious or 
otherwise, will be the first eliminated, for there is nothing more 
offensive to humans than zealotry they don't share.

Perhaps the most misleading point in the foregoing citation is the 
failure to recognize that we're talking about real, breathing human 
beings; people of intellect and judgment; the kind of people we interact 
with, every day of our lives.  We may not agree with all of their views, 
but we must acknowledge that they are capable of reason.

If not, homo sapiens isn't very sapient.



re: "One possible solution to this would be to have the six
      people meet and then have one triad judge the other."

If the rationale I've presented opposing this notion is inadequate, the 
implementors may agree with you.



re: "My original suggestion was for a chain."

I missed that.  Sorry.  Mea culpa.



re: "... there is the same problem is the population is not
      divisible by 3."

That issue is addressed in the proposal:

   "Level 2 is a special case.  If the number of candidates does
    not divide equally into triads, any candidates remaining are
    overflow.  When there is overflow from Level 1, the extra
    person(s) automatically become candidates at Level 2.
    Thereafter, when there is overflow at any level, the number
    of people needed to create a full triad are selected at
    random from the people who were not selected at the previous
    level."



re: "(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.)"

     "I don't really see that as a major issue."

Failure to see this as a major issue is a serious concern.  The purpose 
of Practical Democracy is to give us an opportunity to evaluate the 
people who will represent us in our government.  We don't know these 
people, yet we are going to entrust them with our future.  It is 
imperative that we evaluate our choices.  We may not always get it 
right, but if we have the time and the exposure to them, we can do a lot 
better than we've been doing.

We are enduring a global financial meltdown because financiers, in a 
rush of greed and stupidity, failed to evaluate their counter-parties 
and we failed to evaluate our representatives.  Instead, our 
governmental representatives, chosen by our political parties, created 
the vacuum in which the thieves thrived.

I shall do everything I can to avoid cursing our progeny with the filth 
of partisan politics.



re: "... getting something like this implemented would be hard
      enough."

You've got that right.  Encouraging people to think objectively about 
ideology is painful.  Essentially, objectivity and ideology are 
contradictions in terms.



re: "By voluntary I meant that the decisions of the final council
      are only binding on those who participate."

I'm not confident I understand this.  First, though the petition was 
addressed to a Metropolitan Council, my discussion of it is as a method 
of selecting representatives to any legislature.  A legislature makes 
laws for all the people, not just for those who participate.



Re: "You may seem the numbers being picked drop like a rock as
      the round number increases."

I don't understand this, at all.



re: "Well, he can say that if they don't pick him, then nobody is
      being selected.  He has little ot lose by doing that."

All he can lose is his opportunity to advance.

I suspect level 1 will produce a few such idiots.  Fortunately, they 
will not advance to confound a higher level.  Unfortunately, the two 
people they are grouped with will be eliminated.  The only saving grace 
is that elections are a periodic process and those two people can not be 
placed in the same triad with that idiot in the next several elections. 
  Further analysis of this flaw in the process may reveal a better 
alternative.

Fred