[EM] Practical Democracy
fredgohlke at verizon.net
Sun Feb 7 09:57:27 PST 2016
Good Afternoon, Frank
re: "I think I may have found a more fundamental point
of divergence in Our perspectives."
Yes. You've certainly found a fundamental point of divergence in our
perspectives. Indeed, several points.
re: "Reading Acquaintances /accurately/ requires time, energy,
and a certain degree of familiarity. The system You propose
does not make clear such requirements are met."
When we are motivated to evaluate people and have a week or more to do
so, we are quite effective at it. Of course, some of us are better at
it than others. As anyone following this thread can see, I'm quite slow
to judge others. Of course, my motivation is not to evaluate those I
converse with. My motivation is to participate in a thoughtful
examination of democratic systems. Your motivation may be different.
re: "I don't see how Your discussion of (1a) addresses
Your concern was expressed specifically as:
"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 chosen again."
Paragraph 1a specifically prevents an "identical triad from last time"
being formed, whether by "sheer coincidence" or any other means. If
that does not address your concern, you'll have to describe the precise
method by which your concern can occur in considerably more detail than
you've done so far.
re: "I find polling and referenda have the same flaws
Indeed you may, but if you feel so strongly on the point, perhaps you
could describe the method you'd prefer. As I've pointed out, the PD
process does not specify a method. It simply suggests a mechanism by
which some form of post-electoral control can be implemented. Adding
your preference might be helpful to those considering the concept.
More information about the Election-Methods