[EM] language/framing quibble

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Afternoon, Kristofer

I'd like to start by thanking you for your analytical comments.  Your 
forbearance on the points where my understanding lags is gratifying, for 
I fear your level of education exceeds mine by a considerable margin. 
Although I lack formal education, I don't lack the capacity for 
independent thought.  If you wish to know a bit more about me, you'll 
find a brief profile at:

http://whither-democracy.blogspot.com/



re: "There are two ways to regard the results of an election
      method. The first is how accurate the representatives
      display the properties or opinions of the people, and the
      second is how good a job the representatives do."

In this, you describe a distinction I hadn't considered ...

I focus on how good a job our representatives do rather than how well 
they reflect the opinions of the people, because, while I stand second 
to no-one in my commitment to our right to govern ourselves, I'm not 
blind to the fact that we can be manipulated.

We may, at some point, need to look at why we are susceptible to 
manipulation, but, at the moment, I'll only say if we are to govern 
ourselves, we must offset that susceptibility with leaders who have the 
ability to guide us past our own shortcomings and the integrity to do so 
to our common advantage.  We will only improve our society when we find 
leaders who can transcend the vagaries of opinion without betraying the 
public interest.



re: "... because politics is a process, if a method has biases,
      then these may amplify in ways that can cause odd results
      over time."

I had not understood that point and I'm glad you raise it.  Would it be 
correct to imagine there is a difference between a systemic bias (as in 
the plurality system) and the biases of ideology (as with Liberals and 
Conservatives)?  I believe your reference is to the former.

It is my belief (until I learn otherwise) that the process I've outlined 
has a bias in favor of the most fundamental goals of society.  Humans 
have a natural tendency to pursue their own interest, and the choices 
they make will reflect this.  Time and repetition will refine the 
choices from the extremes enunciated by the least thoughtful of us to 
their essence as enunciated by the most thoughtful.



re: "Even if the country was nearly filled with paragons of
      virtue, partisanship would happen nevertheless, simply
      because of the long term feedback of the system."

Although I don't think you mean otherwise, partisanship is natural for 
humans.  It exists independently of our political systems.  Politicians 
exploit that tendency to our disadvantage.  They trade on it to attain 
power.

An important consideration for a sound electoral method is the ability 
to function independent of partisanship.  We all have partisan feelings. 
  Indeed, they are a vital part of society, but they must always be a 
voice and never a power.  The danger is not in partisanship, it is in 
allowing partisans to control government.



re: "... I try to find situations where your method loses
      information, and see whether they could cause long-term
      problems."

We know systems can be corrupted.  If we find flaws in this one now, we 
have an opportunity to correct them.  I've spent many hours trying to 
imagine weaknesses in the method, but that is a matter best investigated 
by others.  I, like all humans, am constrained by my own blinders.



re: "... the intuitive idea is that if a group of three (or
      some other number) agrees upon a compromise, then by
      necessity, that compromise can't contain all possible
      opinions of the group.  If this happens in many places,
      the compromise of compromises will differ from the
      compromise of all, had they been somehow able to elect
      directly, simply because the minorities add up to a sizable
      fraction that could have influenced matters if they had been
      more lucky."

I understand your point.  I would agree with it ... if humans were stick 
figures.  Since we are not, I think it misleading to attribute monomania 
to all humans.  It is true there are among us people so obsessed with 
the rectitude of a belief they will sacrifice themselves and others to 
assert their point of view.  However, such individuals are but a tiny 
part of the human race.  Most humans are amenable to reason, but they 
must have an environment in which reason can thrive.

Taken as a group, members of a minority can appear monolithic, but when 
you examine the individuals that make up the group, you find endless 
variations in their belief in and commitment to the group.  You also 
find they each embody parts of many other groups, some of which are 
antithetical to each other.  There is infinite variety in their views. 
Rare indeed, is the individual that does not favor some minority.  I 
fear that excessive focus on minorities will distort one's view of humanity.

In the case of three people selecting a representative, or, perhaps even 
better, a spokesperson, the selection is not a compromise, it is a 
conscious decision that one individual's advocacy of some dynamically 
defined group of topics is superior to that of the others.  It is 
correct to say the person selected can not contain (represent) all the 
possible opinions of the group ... but that is an advantage rather than 
a disadvantage.  Taken over a broad spectrum ... say the 3000 triads at 
the initial level in the example ... the cumulative effect is a 
conscious effort by all participants to make the best selection 
possible, under the dominant biases of the time.

If I may presume to suggest an instance which (I think) bears out the 
circumstance you describe, we can reasonably imagine most humans feel we 
should avoid the mindless slaughter of war.  Yet, the chances of 
selecting a candidate absolutely committed to opposing war is very small 
because we also recognize the governments of our era are imperfect.

Even so, we can anticipate that when people are not obliged to choose 
between 'hawks' and 'doves' they will choose candidates with a 
preference for avoiding armed conflict; people who will work, within the 
realities of their time, to eliminate war as an element of policy. 
Thus, what is declared (by some) to be a minority public opinion (i.e., 
anti-war sentiment) gains influence, not by attracting additional 
adherents, but by the ascendancy of reason over partisanship.



re: "The second is that if there are multiple opinions (not just
      yes and no), then the triad can't hold an opinion that's
      held strongly by less than a third of the people."

As described in the response to the first point, neither humans nor 
their opinions are so monochromatic.  People often favor opinions that 
are not currently popular.  When they do, they work for their 
implementation indirectly even though direct advocacy would be stymied. 
  To assert that people are defined by the opinions attributed to them 
is putting the cart before the horse.  Speaking of horses, I'll stop 
beating this one ... it may already be dead.



re: "... if the legislature can recall the executive, having a
      majoritarian executive is of less problem than having an
      unrepresentative legislature."

This topic is mentioned but not expanded in the second footnote to the 
Sefton petition:

     "#2: The process is inherently bi-directional.  Questions on
      specific issues can easily be transmitted directly to and
      from the electors for the guidance or instruction of elected
      officials."

The point was not expanded, in part, because it is not included in the 
petition.  Another reason for not expanding it is that it is 
implementation-dependent.  The natural bi-directionality of the process 
allows many enhancements, not least of which is recall.  It also opens 
the door to substantial digressions from the primary focus of the 
process ... to harness our natures to the electoral process.  We can 
anticipate that this topic can, and will, lead to considerable 
dissension between those who feel representatives must be under the 
direct control of the people and those who feel we elect people of 
judgment and should (within limits) trust their judgment.



re: "... say that there's only one political axis (left-wing to
      right-wing). The two parties occupy positions some distance
      away from center, say at 0.20 and 0.75. Then the compromise
      of the left-wing party will be at 0.20, and that of the
      right-wing party will be at 0.75; these are both more
      extremely placed than the true compromise at 0.5."

I think I understand.  I took the .20 and .75 values to mean a position 
within a wing rather than a position on the axis, but that line of 
thought led me astray.  In an effort to enhance my understanding, I 
tried to create a diagram but that didn't work for me, either, so I 
tried creating a diagram of my own.

Is this representation, where each symbol (l,m,r) indicates 2% of the 
electorate, close?  The idea I'm trying to convey is that the (l)eft and 
(r)ight portions of the electorate are approximately equal at 40% each 
and there's a middle segment, committed to neither side, of 
approximately 20%.  The candidates for each side are represented as 
being 20% (L) and 25% (R) from the least radical end of each wing:

                      L                  R
      llllllllllllllllllllmmmmm mmmmmrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
           -01%/-40%       -10%/+10%      +11%/+50%

If "L" wins:
                      L (-18)
      llllllllllllllllllllmmmmm mmmmmrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
           -01%/-40%       -10%/+10%      +11%/+50%

If "R" wins:
                                         R (+20)
      llllllllllllllllllllmmmmm mmmmmrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
           -01%/-40%       -10%/+10%      +11%/+50%

If that is a reasonable depiction of what you mean, even the most 
cursory examination should show how unappealing it is, from the 
perspective of the entire electorate.  Obviously, the more either 
candidate moves toward its polar extreme (and we've often seen that in 
the U.S.), the more offensive the concept is to reason. Nor is the 
offensiveness ameliorated by the fact that a majority of the electorate 
chose the final winner because their choices were limited to two actors 
and were based on a multiplicity of emotional triggers inspired by 
professional opinion-makers.



re: "... one thing I observed from the simulations is that the
      higher level councils often have not just a majority, but
      consensus. Do you think this could lead the councilmembers
      to consider their own positions to be held by more than is
      actually the case?"

I suspect that is a virtual certainty, for projection is another natural 
human trait (albeit one I did not consider and I'm deeply impressed that 
your simulations revealed it.)  Since I had never considered this aspect 
of the process and am an inordinately slow thinker, it will take me a 
long time to fully appreciate the significance of this point.  At first 
blush, I lean toward the opinion that it's favorable:  Those who would 
advocate positions must have confidence in their rectitude.  Part of 
that confidence will come from the belief that they speak for many 
like-minded people.  If this leads to excess, it will affect subsequent 
elections (or invoke some action via the bi-directional nature of the 
selection process).



re: "... you could either readjust the election method, or
      compensate by some other means; I suppose it's the latter
      that you're referring to when you say that we'd need to
      change the way we maintain our laws."

Yes.  Although I don't want to digress unduly, I think it ludicrous that 
a provision enacted by a tiny majority of a legislature should become 
the law of the land in perpetuity. Laws should have a life defined by 
the extent of their public support.  Oversimplified, and with a 
percentage used for example only, a law enacted by a majority of less 
than 52% should have to be re-enacted after one year.  Living under a 
law is different than discussing it in preparation for enactment. 
Therefore, laws should require annual re-enactment until they attract 
enough support to raise them to a higher bracket with a longer life or 
fail of adoption.



re:  "I'm also saying that if 52.5% of the population holds a
       given opinion, 4.1% of the time, a majority of the final
       triad members hold the opposing opinion (a "majority
       flip"). That's not so bad, and it actually surprised me"

I, too, am surprised ... but surprised it is possible to devise 
simulations of such precision.  Although I never thought about the 
possibility of a "majority flip", it doesn't surprise me that they 
occur.  Indeed, part of my rationale is that, given time and an 
environment in which to reflect, thoughtful people will learn (i.e., 
change their opinions).  (In an attempt to interject a bit of humor, 
I'll tell you one of my favorite sayings is that I change my opinions 
more frequently than I change my socks.  All it takes is clearer 
understanding.)



re: "The second representativeness issue would be similar to
      there being four traffic solutions; one has to remain
      unrepresented unless some can argue for more than one
      solution."

There is little in life I find more stimulating than reminders that 
there are valid views other than my own ... and they're the most fun 
when they are described simply and clearly so I don't have to work for 
the insight.  Thanks for this one.


If I've failed to address anything of note, please let me know.

Fred