>>> The biggest problem I see is, who gets to define the rules for what >>> gets decided at which level? If the authority for that is too >>> dispersed, you get a logjam. If too centralized, you risk devaluing >>> certain levels which would seemingly defeat the whole purpose of the >>> arrangement.
>> Yes, ok. that can be a problem. I suggest the following strategy : >> - Decision are taken a the top level, >> - if citizen disagree with a decion, they can change their >> representaion at any time >> - If representatives think they are not sure about a decision, then >> they report the qusetion to the n-1 level. > Hmm, that sounds like a recipe for chaotic behavior - if there's too > many links, potentially one small change can disrupt things at any > time. Of course, it might be a fun and worthwhile computer simulation > to see what constraints would be necessary to guarantee some measure of > stability. Yes, this is a risk, but 1/ it can be attacked by tuning the momentum in the system. i.e. you can add progagation times or some kind of low pass filtering between the tiers. 2/ with the step 3, the impact is limitated to specific topics, which drastically reduces the potential catastrophic impact of such a behaviour. (especially as there is no more concentration of power) 3/ Chaotic behaviour is the only way to have "some kind of intelligence" in the system Intelligence is inherently chaotic. The system being chaotic, simulating it with a computer would be quite difficult. I don't know where we would find good simulation for human beings and there is quite a risk to miss important behaviours of the system. Instead, I would suggest to implement it in parallel with existing institutions, to keep a control, make tuning and see what happens. Philippe Errembault ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info