[EM] language/framing quibble

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Morning, Raph

re:  "My concern would be that their opinions would be dismissed
       out of hand.  If there is nobody pushing them at a national
       level, then that is an almost instinctive reaction to weird
       ideas (including 'good' weird ideas)."

Any opinion that can "be dismissed out of hand", should be.  Even a 
'good' weird idea must have enough appeal to inspire thought.



re: "Well, would be worth seeing if it works at the council level
      first."

I agree.  That's why I was helping with the draft for the Sefton Borough 
Council.  Will it cause a ripple?  I dunno.



re: (About explaining the worst case, where all except a minority
      gets removed), "Ahh, I did with the religious minority?"

As I said in my response to that explanation, the reasoning is seriously 
flawed.  It is based on the idea that an individual can 'veto' any 
selection except his own.  That's a losing proposition because it 
prevents the individual's advance.  It is not a strategy by which any 
ideology, however rabid, can gain power.



re: "The question comes down to how well the 'Veto anyone else
      being promoted' works." and the strained rationale that
      follows:

The entire derivation leading to "A 10.41% minority would take 10 rounds 
to be virtually 100% and 6 rounds to have a majority." is based on 
irrational assumptions.  I recognize the need to find a hole in the 
concept, but a concerted ideological attack isn't one of them.  The 
proposal atomizes all ideologies, the 'good' ones and the 'bad' ones, 
and forces their detailed examination.



re: (with regard to a zealot), "He says nothing about his veto
     plan, and then at the end if he can't get through he vetoes."

That is roughly equivalent to a suicide bomber.  Fortunately for all of 
us, such people are but an infinitesimal portion of our society 
(although they do damage in excess of their number.)

Note that the process prevents the zealot from affecting more than two 
people.  The effect, for them, is bad, but they have two things in their 
favor:  They have an opportunity to convert the zealot to a different 
view and they have the knowledge that elections are a repetitive 
process.  They'll have another chance.



re: (with regard to whether a zealot could advance), "Would
     people see through him?"

That depends on his talent for obfuscation and deceit and the 
perceptiveness of his peers.  We currently endure a system that elevates 
unscrupulous people by design.  They are masters of deceit and 
obfuscation.  Were they subjected to the critical examination proposed 
in Practical Democracy, very few would attain public office.  As I said 
in the outline (and to Kristofer Munsterhjelm, the other day):

   "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: "It would depend on how the voting works."

That will be an implementation matter.  In my opinion, the three people 
in a triad, after due deliberation, will either be able to say 'We've 
agreed on a candidate' or 'We cannot agree on a candidate'.  I'm not 
sure more should be required.



re: "You could assume that a person from a religious group was
      going to be a zealot."

One should not assume anything.  That is particularly true when the 
process provides an opportunity to examine the person and determine the 
extent of their zealotry.



re: "Reason is both the problem and solution here.  Reason sets
      up the system and reason tries to find ways to abuse it."

And, that, dear Raph, is a very astute observation.  No system is 
impervious to corruption.  That's why it's important to probe for 
weaknesses in the proposal ... as you've been doing.



re: "... I was just responding to the suggestion that having
      pairs of triads would cause a problem if there was an uneven
      number of triads.  It seems the same solution could apply."

That's a good point.  I should have seen it ... but didn't.



re: "... the increase from 2 to 3 people isn't a major increase.
      If people can handle 2, then they can handle 3."

I don't agree.  Oh!  I agree they can handle 3, but I don't agree they 
can be as detailed or thorough in their evaluation.  It takes time and 
attention to gain insight into another person's nature.  The amount one 
devotes to the task affects the depth of their understanding.  First 
impressions are slowly validated or rejected over time, and the greater 
the time the more accurate the assessment (and the less chance a zealot 
will slip through).



re: "The point was that the number of triads that end up in a
      stalemate would increase as the number of rounds pass."

This is a good thought.  The circumstances set up interesting dynamics. 
  Since those who advance will be people with a strong desire for public 
office, they're not going to yield easily.  Yet, those unable to 
attribute value to others will not make good representatives.  We can 
anticipate considerable tension in the later triads, and that gives the 
participants an opportunity to gauge the others' grace under fire. 
That's a significant benefit of the method.



re: "What about rescrambling them.  Triads that fail to reach a
      consensus are reformed.  Each round might consist of 2-3
      sub-rounds."

That's a possibility.  My initial reaction was unfavorable, but after 
thinking more about it, it may be a reasonable adaptation.  It 
introduces scheduling problems, but if the stalemate problem turns out 
to be greater than I anticipate, the schedules can be reworked.

Fred