On 9/15/08, Fred Gohlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Holders of minority views who wish their view to gain ascendancy have an > obligation to persuade the majority of their compatriots that their > (currently minority) view is advantageous for all the people. If they can > not do so, they have no 'inherent right' to representation in a democratic > government.
Yes, they do. However, under your system, they do get represented in the "level 1" triads. What they lose is the having high level representatives. 1/7 of the population is a pretty high bar. It is around 14% (and 1/3 is even higher). There are many small parties that represent on the order of 5% of the population. > > The problem of democracy is not to provide representation for minority > views, it is to select representatives with the judgment and intellect to > contemplate minority views in a rational fashion. The only reason this > seems improper is that we have been subject to partisan rule for so long > it's difficult to see beyond partisanship and the contentious society it > produces. A wise electorate will realize their best interests are served by > electing people with the wit and wisdom to listen to, consider, and, when > appropriate, accept fresh points of view. > I think having representation is also important. You want people who will promote more than the 'accepted' view. However, since your proposal is for a council rather than the Parliament, then this is not as much an issue. > re: "In the worst case, only the majority counts ... and the minority > preference ... gets shaved off." > > Why is that the 'worst' case? This seems to lead back to my original > comment on this thread to the effect that there is less interest in > democracy than in schemes to empower minorities. This is not the worst case. The worst case is that all except a minority view gets removed. A dedicated minority could easily take control of the system. This doesn't necessarily mean that they are organised, just a bloc that holds a strong viewpoint. A dedicated religious group could fall into that category. If they represented 25% of the population and used a veto any appointment unless you are selected strategy, then they would be well represented in the next stage. The odds of a triad having at least one of them is 58%. Assume that half of them get through and the other half they veto, then they will represent 29% in the 2nd round. The remaining 41% will be people outside the bloc (though maybe lower as there could be vetoes there too). 29 out of 71 is 41%, so they have increased their share from 25 to 41% (65% increase). In round 2, 41% gets them a member in 79% of the triads. Assuming the same results, that gives them 39.5% through against 21% other. Thus in 2 steps they have a 65% majority. Repeated over 10 rounds would increase their share to nearly 100%. Now this is also true with standard election methods. People can stand for election on false pretenses and then do things that are not supported by the public. However, the more levels, the more chance of it happening. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
