<span style="color:rgb(69,69,69);font-family:UICTFontTextStyleBody;font-size:14px;text-decoration:-webkit-letterpress">I think I may have found a more fundamental point of divergence in Our perspectives. You say, "</span><span style="color:rgb(69,69,69);font-family:UICTFontTextStyleBody;font-size:14px;text-decoration:-webkit-letterpress;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">At present, we know candidates for public office are committed to serve their party, not the people." I disagree. People have all sorts of commitments. In general, They tend to seek like-minded Individuals sharing similar goals and attempt to enlist Their support. The premise You describe seems cynical and not based in reality due to the fact come election time if a Candidate has not served the People adequately and enough of a consensus about Who should replace the Incumbent exists, no amount of loyalty to party will prevent Voters from replacing said Incumbent.</span><div style="color:rgb(69,69,69);font-family:UICTFontTextStyleBody;font-size:14px;text-decoration:-webkit-letterpress"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></div><div style="color:rgb(69,69,69);font-family:UICTFontTextStyleBody;font-size:14px;text-decoration:-webkit-letterpress"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">Reading Acquaintances /accurately/ requires time, energy, and a certain degree of familiarity. The system You propose does not make clear such requirements are met.</span></div><div style="color:rgb(69,69,69);font-family:UICTFontTextStyleBody;font-size:14px;text-decoration:-webkit-letterpress"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></div><div style="color:rgb(69,69,69);font-family:UICTFontTextStyleBody;font-size:14px;text-decoration:-webkit-letterpress"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">I don't see how Your discussion of (1a) addresses My concern.</span></div><div style="color:rgb(69,69,69);font-family:UICTFontTextStyleBody;font-size:14px;text-decoration:-webkit-letterpress"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></div><div style="color:rgb(69,69,69);font-family:UICTFontTextStyleBody;font-size:14px;text-decoration:-webkit-letterpress"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">I find polling and referenda have the same flaws of recalls.</span></div><br>On Thursday, February 4, 2016, Fred Gohlke <<a href="mailto:fredgohlke@verizon.net">fredgohlke@verizon.net</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi, Frank<br>
<br>
Thank you, very much, for your comments. It seems to me we are getting closer to the heart of the differences in our views.<br>
<br>
re: "I'm not sure You are appreciating or accounting for<br>
just how long it takes to vet Candidates and how hard<br>
it is to uncover information both relevant to Voters<br>
and detrimental to the Candidates' aspirations."<br>
<br>
I think the difference in our views on this point is in our assessment of those who become candidates. At present, we know candidates for public office are committed to serve their party, not the people. Once these unprincipled people achieve leadership positions, they infect our society because morality is a top-down phenomenon. This distorts our view of the kind of people who seek public office.<br>
<br>
The problem is not the people; it is a political system that rewards politicians who are willing to sacrifice their integrity to attract party backing; a system that renounces virtue and is ruled by cynicism. It leads us to believe that everyone is as deceitful as our political leaders. We are misled by the high visibility of deceit and corruption in our culture. The idea that it is inescapable leads to the self-defeating notion that trying to correct it is futile.<br>
<br>
That's a shame because the vast majority of our peers are decent people. They have to be, for society could not exist otherwise. When we include everyone in the political process, the upright people, uncommitted to anything except those who advance them to public office, will swamp the deceitful individuals who presently dominate our political system.<br>
<br>
My guess is that this is a core difference in our views which we may be unable to resolve.<br>
<br>
<br>
re: "I think You also overestimate People's ability to<br>
read body language and underestimate People's ability<br>
to fake such language."<br>
<br>
I can't say you're wrong since I can't document my faith in people. But I can ask you a question that bears on the topic: Do you play bridge?<br>
<br>
If you do, I'd guess that you get a lot of insight into the nature of the people you play with. You can tell which ones are risk-takers, which are methodical, which do not enjoy the game, which you'll be happy to have as a partner. Obviously, if you don't play, this will mean nothing to you, but those who do will understand how it relates to this discussion. We 'read' our acquaintances, constantly.<br>
<br>
<br>
re: "By "replace the Representative", I mean in the subsequent<br>
election cycle, if out of sheer coincidence an identical<br>
triad from last time is formed, deciding whether the Person<br>
selected to represent at the next stage is chosen again."<br>
<br>
This is not the only concern. Another, even more threatening, is that personal antipathy between between members of the triad prevents one or more people advancing. To prevent this, Paragraph (1a) of the description says, in part:<br>
<br>
"The random grouping mechanism must insure that no two<br>
people are assigned to a triad if they served together<br>
in a triad in any of the five most recent elections."<br>
<br>
This ensures that, at the lowest level, advancement will neither be aided or hindered by grouping the same people in a triad.<br>
<br>
<br>
re: "Your "bribe" response doesn't disprove My premise<br>
or the associated conclusion."<br>
<br>
You said you would "not be making any such decision unless I can ensure I will advance to the next level" and I only commented on the difficulty of ensuring your own advancement.<br>
<br>
I had already pointed out that "The triads are not deciding to replace their representative.", which seemed to me to be the focus of your premise. It now seems clear that I didn't understand your premise or conclusion.<br>
<br>
<br>
re: "In re recall: I have never been impressed with recalls;<br>
in My estimation, using recalls for reasons other than<br>
criminal activity tends to give too much weight to the<br>
passions of the public and too little weight deliberative<br>
contemplation and patience."<br>
<br>
I'm not sure I agree, but recall is not the only option available to those who implement the process. As mentioned in the description, the bi-directionality of the process "offers those who implement the process a broad scope, ranging from simple polling of constituents to referenda on selected issues and recall of an elected representative." It really depends on how the process is implemented.<br>
<br>
Fred Gohlke<br>
----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="http://electorama.com/em" target="_blank">http://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br>
</blockquote><br><br>-- <br>P.S.: I prefer to be reached on BitMessage at BM-2D8txNiU7b84d2tgqvJQdgBog6A69oDAx6<br>