Good Afternoon, Juho re: "I tend to think that often the understanding is also the most crucial step. I mean that after such understanding and model is found that it covers all aspects and players and can be accepted by all, then people tend to think that actually it is obvious and it is natural to follow the model. The practical implementation of the model is then just straight forward work."
I agree, and we are in the early stages of that process. As our understanding grows, the breadth of our grasp expands to include aspects that were formerly obscure. Because politics and human relations are very complex and we each have our blindfolds, we must, from time to time, adjust our ideas to integrate well-reasoned objections raised by others. Over time, the model appears, as you say, more and more natural ... indeed, almost inevitable ... to those who consider it. re: "Note that also the current two-party system of the USA has similar characteristics. The society will be run by the representatives of the largest faction." In a sense, that's true. The parties adjust their platforms to attract voters. They pay lip service to various opinions in order to achieve power. But, as we all know to our sorrow, campaign promises are among the biggest jokes in our country. There is an enormous gap between the hopes and desires of the American people and the actions of our elected representatives. It is important to recognize that party interest and the people's interest are not synonymous. The party, through its obligation to its donors, has interests far beyond the interest or even the knowledge of the people. Parties advocate positions on stem-cell research, digital rights management, tort reform, bankruptcy proceedings, and intellectual property rights (to name just a few of the most obvious such interests), not because their position is good for the people of the United States but because the party has been paid to support those positions by the vendors who profit from them. re: "Small groups may also have problems like strong individuals simply running over the less aggressive and less confident ones." This will surely happen at the lower levels because humans are characterized by varying degrees of aggressiveness. Since passive people are unlikely to advance, the more aggressive will. However, undue aggressiveness will quickly become a liability. As the levels advance, all members of each group will have some degree of aggressiveness. Those who combine other qualities ... knowledge, eloquence, forthrightness and judgment among them ... will shun those whose greatest claim to fame is aggressiveness. re: "It is also possible to try to improve the behaviour of the (potentially larger) groups (to avoid monologues and other strong individual related problems) by setting some clear rules and procedures for them." I disagree. We have no shortage of rules and procedures in politics. Rules seek to identify and inhibit perverse actions rather than rendering the actions unproductive. The essence of the Active Democracy concept is that it harnesses our natural pursuit of our own interest by penalizing negative traits (excessive aggressiveness, for example) and rewarding positive ones (like intellect and integrity). However, having said that, I agree that the "Search of optimal parameters should continue." Perhaps someone with expertise in the group dynamics field can contribute ideas of value. re: This next one, which really tickled me ... "One general comment. It is typical that people of category 3 ("seeking selection") are overrepresented in a political system (representatives and civil servants). I tend to think that a political system that would favour more category 2 candidates ("willing to be selected") would be a happier one." ... because I made a similar assertion to an acquaintance in India, when I said ... "Not everyone who wants to achieve public office should. In fact, those who desire public office are often the least fit to serve the public interest. In this instance, willingness is a better criterium than desire." He responded by pointing out (approximately) that reforms are carried out by people who believe they have a better idea and seek office in order to make it reality. It's a good point. I think what you and I mean is that those who seek public office for the prestige and power it brings are poor choices ... and we have too many of them, already. re: "One interesting property of the proposed system is that current top level representatives, even if very popular, have a high risk of not being re-elected." You are correct and it is an important consideration. A person may very well rise to hold public office and never be elected again. Those who serve in public office are taking time out of their lives with no career guarantees. Such people must be afforded salary continuation and something similar to the G. I. Bill of Rights ... advanced education, career training, small business loans, and so forth ... to ease their transition back to private life. re: "The need to categorize the representatives is still there and some new kind of party structure may well be established." I'm not sure the public needs to categorize their representatives beyond "Good" or "Bad". Even so, we can anticipate that, once elected, representatives will align themselves with others of similar interests. The difference is they have no obligation to a party. They achieved election on their own merits, and their associations will be healthy, free-will arrangements. re: "You define fund raising as a form of corruption." Absolutely. Many of the most important laws in our country are so obscure and arcane (by design or otherwise) it is difficult for the public to grasp their significance. That's one of the reasons it is so easy for vested interests to buy the laws they desire. It is trivial to foist them on an unwitting public. After an earlier administration vigorously prosecuted Microsoft for its monopolistic practices and had them convicted, the next administration abandoned the case. Now, only the Europeans have the will and the means to limit the excesses of that behemoth. Meanwhile, our legislature expanded the intellectual property laws ... laws that were strong enough to make us the greatest nation on earth ... to shield that monopoly. Those laws have became a perpetual tax on each and every one of us. The laws passed in the 1930's to prevent excesses of the financial industry were gutted and discarded by our legislators at the behest of the industry. That's why our country is in a precarious financial situation again ... and why we, the people, will pay for it with raging inflation. re: "Even though the election in the small groups is quite random the statistical effect of general marketing must despite of this be significant." That's true enough. Mass manipulation through the media will not stop. Nor should it. Information ... including mass marketing information ... is and should be free. But we should not blind ourselves to the power of marketing and the way it works. It works because we humans are blessed (or cursed, depending on your perspective) with a will-to-believe what we are told about matters beyond our personal knowledge or expertise. It is a powerful force. It is not only powerful, it is strange. It tends to be accompanied by an absolute certainty that which we believe is also true. We start exercising our will-to-believe to fill the gap formed by our lack of knowledge, and then leap directly from ignorance to absolute certainty. This is a group phenomenon; it's particularly noticeable among groups of people who share a common ideology. Such people tend to accept ideas presented by their leaders, often seeking confirmation in books, newspapers, on television, and among their friends, acquaintances and fellow partisans. At the same time, they usually reject, without careful consideration, material that does not support their externally-induced bias. Individuals, on the other hand, are more apt to react as if they had a will-NOT-to-believe. Dr. Jane Mansbridge of Harvard University touched on this phenomenon when she said: "An early and famous psychological experiment, the Asch experiment, showed that people were likely even to doubt the evidence of their own senses (their correct perception that one line in a group of several vertical lines was shorter than the rest) when confronted with a unanimous group of other people saying that what they perceived was wrong (saying that the lines were the same height). Most people in these experiments went along with the others and reported incorrectly that the lines were all the same height. But even one other person saying that the lines were of different heights made it almost certain that the potential dissenter would report what he or she actually saw. It made no difference how many others said the lines were the same height; if just one other confirmed the subject's perception, the subject almost always reported the truth as he or she saw it." http://www.archonfung.net/papers/FungDeliberationDarkNCR04.pdf So, while we are all affected by mass marketing, there is an enormous difference between our susceptibility to ideas spread by that technique when we act as a large group and our ability to evaluate the same ideas rationally when we are called upon to consider them, individually. This aspect of our nature is important because current political systems are campaign-based. Candidates are not individually-challenged. Instead, they deal with the public en masse with mass marketing techniques. It is relatively easy to sway masses of partisans because they share a will-to-believe. A political process that subjects candidates to individual challenge would reduce the sheep-like tendencies sometimes attributed to the public. re: "Is the system expected to allow any representative to be changed at any time?" That is an implementation detail. I feel recall is an absolute right of the people. In Active Democracy, the means of recall are certainly available. Since each representative sits atop a pyramid of known electors, it would not be difficult to establish a procedure for recall. Further, on the same topic: "Being a "pawn" at the bottom of the pyramid may not give the voter a very good position to change his/her candidate at the top." Wouldn't that depend on the implementation? In any case, I don't, personally, favor thinking of those who don't advance beyond the lowest levels as "pawns". For all of us, our interest in government waxes and wanes throughout our lives. One of the most powerful aspects of this approach is that we can begin our participation with any election cycle, and advance as far as our talent allows. We are not pawns in any sense of the word. The extent to which we make our presence felt is a function of our own desire and ability. We do not know at which desk, behind which wheel, before which stove, down which street are the people who will impress us with their unexpected wit and wisdom, with their persuasiveness, with their knowledge and understanding, with their pride, with their desire to make a mark for themselves? Who are the individuals who will thrive and blossom when their reason is consulted, when they are invited to discuss current and prospective concerns, when they learn they can persuade their peers of the wisdom of their own ideas? We have no way of knowing. We know (or, at least, I'm willing to infer) they are out there, our problem is to find them and elevate them. Fred ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info