[EM] Practical Democracy
frankdmartinez at gmail.com
Tue Feb 2 18:29:05 PST 2016
I'm not sure You are appreciating or accounting for just how long it takes
to vet Candidates and how hard it is to uncover information both relevant
to Voters and detrimental to the Candidates' aspirations. If I give Smith a
vote in the early stages and not Jones and it is later revealed Smith
secretly rapes Children and had I given Jones a vote instead the nation
would enter an unprecedented age of prosperity, while Smith might still be
stopped, the assistance of Jones will be lost. (While I understand the
example is contrived, it helps illustrate the concern.) Conversely, the
traditional election format has numerous eyeballs searching for Smith's
secrets, bringing them forward sooner.
I think You also overestimate People's ability to read body language and
underestimate People's ability to fake such language.
By "replace the Representative", I mean in the subsequent election cycle,
if out of sheer coincidence an identical triad from last time is formed,
deciding whether the Person selected to represent at the next stage is
Your "bribe" response doesn't disprove My premise or the associated
In probabilistic analysis: I do criticize thinking; instead I understand
thoughts are only the first step in improving the world. To Me, the odds of
altering the outcome are significant.
In re recall: I have never been impressed with recalls; in My estimation,
using recalls for reasons other than criminal activity tends to give too
much weight to the passions of the public and too little weight
deliberative contemplation and patience.
On Tuesday, February 2, 2016, Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke at verizon.net> wrote:
> Good Morning, Frank
> re: "In re intensity: it is not obvious how
> this is necessarily true."
> Everyone who participates in the PD process is as much a candidate for
> public office as they want to be. At the lowest level, when everyone in
> the community is participating, a large percentage of the participants will
> have no desire for public office. Such individuals will drop from the
> process quickly. Those who advance to the upper levels will do so, in
> part, because they have a desire to do so.
> As a result, at the higher levels, the triads will be made up of
> individuals who want to keep advancing. They will be anxious to do two
> things, persuade the others in their triad of their own suitability for
> advancement, and to uncover any weaknesses in the two people they are
> competing with for selection. They will thoroughly 'vet' their opponents
> because it is in their own best interest to do so. That will be intense.
> re: "In re press: this does nothing to alter the fact Voters
> in earlier steps will have already chosen Representatives
> far from ideal once all the information is available."
> PD is a filtering process. From the perspective of the members of each
> triad, the people who are doing the actual choosing, the individuals they
> select to represent their interest are as ideal as they can make them.
> Will some of those chosen at the lowest level be poor choices for public
> office? Almost certainly. And some of them will be, just as certainly,
> excellent choices for public office. During the re-iterations of the
> process the less qualified individuals will be filtered out, in part
> because, as the process advances and the field of candidates narrows, the
> press will publicize details about the remaining candidates.
> re: "The fact advancing Representatives are matched with
> Strangers suggests vetting will be harder than the
> current system. If I don't know the Others in the
> triad, I don't know how to investigate Them as
> thoroughly nor would necessarily have sufficient time.
> It doesn't take most of us very long to decide the value of those we
> meet. Face-to-face meetings allow us to observe the non-verbal clues
> people emit and they give us insight into the attitudes of our
> acquaintances. All-in-all, we're pretty good at evaluating people. It is
> possible the PD process will raise an unprincipled individual to public
> office, but it will be the exception rather than the rule. The important
> thing is that the process raises individuals to public office, not
> parties. Even the most cunning individual, if elected, can't do much
> damage because (s)he stands alone.
> re: "Having several weeks in the average stage, however,
> suggests decisions about whether to replace the current
> Representative will begin long before the current One
> has had sufficient opportunity to demonstrate Their
> decisions have been good on balance, suggesting further
> a trivialization of the notion of representation.
> The triads are not deciding to replace their representative. They are
> deciding which member of their triad best represents the interests of the
> group. If it happens that one of the members of a triad is a current
> representative, that individual may be called upon to justify decisions
> made during their term in office, but the primary purpose of the process is
> to select the individuals best equipped to address and resolve current
> problems. Prior decisions are only important to the extent they show the
> candidate's 'gyroscope'.
> re: "I will not be making any such decision unless I can
> ensure I will advance to the next level."
> It is unlikely you can guarantee your own advancement. You could, I
> suppose, bribe the other two members of your triad to select you, but
> that's a losing proposition. If you advance, you will have to bribe two
> new people. The problem is that it's possible the attempt to do so will
> cause one of them (who is looking for character weaknesses in you so they
> can improve their chances of advancing) to cry "Foul!", revealing you as an
> unprincipled cheat.
> The only way you can be reasonably sure of advancing is if you have a
> clear understanding of the community's concerns and are able to persuade
> your peers that you are the best equipped person to represent their
> interests. If you don't, others will.
> re: "Do You have probabilistic analysis showing the odds of
> a Voter in PD altering the outcome of an election versus
> simple majority of the community?"
> Nope. I'm the layest of laymen, a former truck-driver; a profession that
> gave me a lot of time to think carefully about the world we live in. You
> may denigrate thought, if you wish, but I find it rewarding.
> re: "If the Peers are chosen at random, how is
> there accountability?"
> The people who advance are accountable to those who select them. Each
> elected official sits atop a pyramid of known electors, Those who implement
> the process can provide a mechanism so the electors can recall an elected
> representative. That is the essence of accountability.
> Fred Gohlke
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
P.S.: I prefer to be reached on BitMessage at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Election-Methods