<span style="color:rgb(69,69,69);font-family:UICTFontTextStyleBody;font-size:14px;text-decoration:-webkit-letterpress;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">"When we are motivated to evaluate people and have a week or more to do so, we are quite effective at it." -- Even if true in some cases, a tendency for the statement to be true in the typical case has not been established. Some Individuals are far better at doing so than Others which means Some are far worse at doing so. Even if this premise were granted, in a country the size of the US, if We presume an average stage of, say, 2.5 weeks in length, the process would take almost 11 months; in a term length of 24 months for Representatives, PD would result in a system where Incumbents spend almost half of Their time focused not on doing Their jobs well enough to ensure re-election but on whether the mathematics of random shuffling have done Them out of a job altogether, giving Them no reason to perform in the interest of the Voters.</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)">In re 1a: fair point. One could concoct a scenario where a small enough population exists as to render 1a unable to be met. At the same time, another concern of a similar nature exists. Suppose the ideal Representative (IR) of the Voters is joined with 2 hostile Voters in a triad. IR is widely recognized by a sizable majority of the Voters as being the IR, not these 2. They vote for 1 of Themselves to advance while IR vote for IR to advance. Net result, IR does not advance. While One might argue the formation of parties (or their equivalent in PD) where groups seek to have triads consisting solely of their own Members could help prevent this scenario, a robust election system should be independent of the number and size of parties. While one might argue for post-election control (PEC) to address this issue, I will discuss this concept in a moment.</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)">In re PEC, why would PEC be considered a good thing? The average Voter has only an average Voter's knowledge and understanding of how best to address the issues, by definition. Having Someone to specialize in such address helps to avoid unnecessary detriments, just as having Someone specialize in heart surgery does likewise. Just as We wouldn't want a Patient directing the heart Surgeon's work while in progress, so too do We not want Voters directing the actions of Their Representatives. The very name, "Representative", mean Someone and Their interests are to be represented by Someone Else, as opposed to a "Delegate". Allowing PEC, except in the cases I have previously mentioned makes Representatives in name only. My preference, therefore, is to allow Representatives to do Their jobs while the People discuss the issues/performanceOfTheRepresentative and decide on Election Day if the Representatives are performing adequately or whether sufficient consensus exists for choosing a replacement Representative.</span></div><br>On Sunday, February 7, 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">Good Afternoon, Frank<br>
<br>
re: "I think I may have found a more fundamental point<br>
of divergence in Our perspectives."<br>
<br>
Yes. You've certainly found a fundamental point of divergence in our perspectives. Indeed, several points.<br>
<br>
<br>
re: "Reading Acquaintances /accurately/ requires time, energy,<br>
and a certain degree of familiarity. The system You propose<br>
does not make clear such requirements are met."<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
re: "I don't see how Your discussion of (1a) addresses<br>
My concern."<br>
<br>
Your concern was expressed specifically as:<br>
<br>
"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>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
re: "I find polling and referenda have the same flaws<br>
of recalls."<br>
<br>
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.<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>