On Mar 9, 2008, at 16:55 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
"As the levels advance, the participants
need more time to evaluate those they are grouped with."
I don't trust that groups of three would always make good decisions
even if given time.
I really don't think "getting appropriate competitors/supporters when
the election tree was constructed" is a valid concern. The tree is
not
constructed in advance; each level generates the next level. Given
the
vagaries of human nature, it is impossible to predict which of the
three
people will advance. The only thing you can say with certainty is
that,
as the levels advance, the people selected seek continued advancement.
Also I referred to the unpredictability of the tree construction.
Having said that, I think we must acknowledge the possibility that a
glib individual will advance solely on that talent. While I believe
such instances can occur, I think they will be rare. The people who
reach the upper levels will be intelligent as well as persuasive.
Hoodwinking them will not be easy; they, too, want to advance.
The elected ones are of course likely to be "masters of three party
negotiations".
The idea that randomly selected citizens "could name someone else if
they do not feel like being a representative themselves" is
appallingly
bad. Vested interests would buy the votes of the selected citizens
before the ink was dry on the enabling legislation.
Yes, there are problems if vote buying is allowed. One approach would
be to name the representatives before selecting the voters. And the
transfer ballots could be anonymous. "Willing" candidates could be
known beforehand. This method is more or less a random ballot method.
So, instead of a chain of groups of three one would just bypass the
chain and let one vote do the job. One could limit the range of
possible candidates to local "willing" people if one wants to avoid
electing "the national superstars" every time.
re: "Why is "partisans controlling government" a bad thing?"
We need look no further than National Socialism and Communism to
understand why partisans controlling government is a bad thing. Both
had features that attracted broad public support throughout a national
expanse and both degenerated into destructive forces because their
partisans gained control of their governments.
Actually, we need look no further than the events of 2002 to
understand
why partisans controlling government is a fearful thing. I find it
disconcerting and a bit frightening that so many people are able to
ignore the lesson of that period. The flood of manipulative news,
distorted propaganda and witless hyperbole that engulfed my homeland
before the invasion of Iraq was so outrageous I was moved to post this
message on August 13th, 2002, on an internet site I frequent:
All countries including stable democracies are to some extent
vulnerable to ending up on a path to catastrophes. The whole
political system can be changed (e.g. democracy ended) if people with
that intent have sufficient support at some point in time.
I still find it problematic to say that partisans should be blamed
since they can do both good an bad things. One single ideology or
group of people (r.g. party offices) gaining more power than the
citizens would be willing to give them is a problem. Still I see
"good" and "bad" partisans. We need to try to make the atmosphere and
rules such that the good part gets more power and the risk of the
system escalating to strange paths is small.
AM I ALONE?
I also dislike some phenomena in politics like using war as a tool in
internal politics (or personal career), non-defensive use of military
force, projection of problems to external (typically distant, poorly
known and "different") enemies (so easy to think that one's current
problems are someone else's fault), black and white colouring.
It turned out I was alone.
I'm sure there were people that felt something similar. Many people
don't open their mouth if they see the mainstream appearing to go in
some other direction that what they would take.
Somehow, some way, we must learn to put our faith in the humans
among us
rather than relinquishing our right to govern ourselves to unknown
people who proclaim themselves our agents.
I do trust on better understanding and good models of thinking also
here.
I think we are to some extent missing a commonly approved theory that
would explain such phenomena where the current leaders may not take
us into the right direction (applies also to business life, families
etc. in addition to politics). We have some old ones like "The
Emperor's New Clothes" by Hans Christian Andersen, but maybe we need
also new ones.
Once understood people are less likely to make the same mistakes
again. If people do not get the picture same mistakes could be
repeated any number of times.
Juho
___________________________________________________________
Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" The Wall Street Journal
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
