[EM] language/framing quibble

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Afternoon, Kristofer

re: "The rationale (for protecting an opinion not held by the
      majority of the electorate) is that it enables compromise."

I submit that the essence of the Practical Democracy concept is 
compromise.  Three people, exchanging views on a variety of public 
issues and choosing the spokesperson who most closely represents the 
attitudes of the group, will work out to the best solution possible.  In 
most cases, 'n' won't win, and neither will 'y'.  Instead, superior 
alternatives will be found.



re: "The compromise on a national level might be different from
      the compromise on a local level, meaning that the entire
      spectrum should be preserved to the extent that it is
      possible."

That is an implementation concern.  The original draft of the concept 
was done for the State of New Jersey (US) using the 2004 voting-eligible 
population of 5,637,378 people.  It anticipated that, at certain levels, 
those not selected to advance to state or national offices would 
constitute a parallel process for local and county offices.  The issue 
was not seeking ideological representation but selection of the best, 
brightest and most trustworthy people for public office.



re: "Otherwise, you can get effects similar to primaries where
      the primary electors elect those that are a compromise
      within their own ranks, and then the general election turns
      out to have candidates that are more extremely placed than
      the voters."

I don't believe the methods are comparable in any way.  Parties control 
the selection of candidates for public office.  They are chosen for 
their bias and their lack of integrity, not for their ability to serve 
the public interest.  That creates a situation in which corruption is 
inevitable.



re: ("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.")

      "Yes, but to do so, they need the big picture."

Anyone who achieves selection to, for example, our Congress, is 
guaranteed, not only to have 'the big picture' but to be able to 
enunciate it in so compelling a manner that even those who seek the same 
seat are convinced.  If the selected person is deficient in any way, the 
others will be sure the weakness is made clear before the choice is made.



re: "What I meant is that even if you could magic up an election
      method, there will be som reduction of minority opinion.
      There simply isn't enough room in a 200-seat legislature (to
      use example numbers) to perfectly represent opinions that
      are held by less than a 200th of the people ..."

That is a fact.  We must keep in mind that we elect the 200 people in 
that legislature because we want them to make the best decisions for the 
entire electorate regarding issues that arise during their term.  If an 
issue arises that affects a minority we want them to consider the matter 
carefully and arrive at the best resolution possible for all of us ... 
regardless of anyone's ideology.



re: "... if the method tries, then some opinion held by a greater
      share will suffer.  On this I think we agree ..."

We do.




re: "The majority /of that council/. That need not be the
      majority of the people at large. If the real majority is
      thinly spread, it can get successively shaved off until
      nothing remains."

That may be.  I haven't examined the point carefully because my focus is 
on electing better decision makers.  There is no doubt that there will 
be issues that are not clear-cut.  To resolve them, we need to change 
the way we maintain our laws.  I could describe one way of doing so but 
would rather not digress unless you consider it important.



re: "... if a candidate says "Okay, I'll try to compromise" and
      gets the votes of the rest of the triad, and then escalate,
      then what's keeping the candidate from turning on his
      promise?  Presumably you'd expect most people to be honest,
      but there's still an uncertainty, and that uncertainty
      appears at every level."

That is, and will always be, a risk in representative government. As I 
said in the outline:

   "This is a distillation process, biased in favor of the most
    upright and capable of our citizens.  It cannot guarantee that
    unprincipled individuals will never be selected ... such a
    goal would be unrealistic ... but it does insure that they are
    the exception rather than the rule."



re: "Majority flip frac is the fraction of the times that the
      last triad had a majority for one position where that
      position was in a minority among the people."

Wahoooo!  Ya got me!

Awww, I'm joking.

I confess that I don't understand the math involved but I think I've got 
a slight glimmer of the picture.  Let me also say this.  I REALLY wish I 
could work with math like that.  What little I can see in what you've 
done is exciting.

I guess I'd better check what I think I see:

Are you saying that when 60% of the total population holds a given 
opinion, the chances are that 99.9983% of the final triads will hold 
that opinion?  I'm not clear on the number of levels this entails, but I 
don't greatly care because I assume it's a reasonable number.

I wonder if it would be OK for me to mention the danger in trusting 
simulations when dealing with humans.  The incredible financial crisis 
that threatens us, right now, is as good an example of the danger as I 
can think of.

I think, in trying to visualize the system, it's better to think about 
having three people you know meet, charged with the responsibility for 
resolving some issue.  In municipal terms, for example, for them to 
decide whether a stop sign, a stop light or no traffic control should be 
placed at the intersection of Maple and Vine.  Even though there's an 
excellent chance that they will have divergent views on the matter, it 
is hard to imagine them not making a sincere effort to reach the best 
decision possible for the community.



re: "Let's then hope that the members can combine the opinions
      better than the limitations of the system squeeze out
      minority opinions that may be influential."

Even more (in my opinion), let us hope the process gives us people of 
probity and intellect; the kind of people we can rely on to consider all 
opinions objectively.

Fred