Don & Cathy Hoffard wrote:
You could change the Triad method to say that the final 9 would decide who would get the job and not require that you select only from the final 9. In this way our three citizens could have a chance to be part of the final 9. It does not make the method consistent with our democratic principles but it is closer.
This brings to mind another possible variant, where the council democracy/triad method is used as a party-independent primary. Say that the process terminates when there are 9 candidates left. Then there's a publication period where the candidates try to gain voter's support. After that period, a traditional voting system is used to find the winner.
In that variant, the problem you mention (that those who don't want to be city managers/councilmembers themselves have no choice in the further levels) is ameliorated because, after the primary, the whole people can now decide. Would that be democratic by your definition?
There are other problems with this idea, however. One of the points of the triad system was that instead of campaigning (which is free to exploit flaws in reasoning, like any other form of advertising), there would only be the mutual examination of small groups. Having a primary opens up this option for the second "round", the election itself. Parties or other "patron groups" could tell each candidate "move towards my position, and we'll back you up with the considerable might of our marketing apparatus".
Another problem with the Triad method is that the best person (the one that would be selected by all of the citizens) for the job may be eliminated on the first round by two men who don’t like the third persons looks or they thinks she is too liberal (or too conservative). Also the best person could also be eliminated because someone on her Triad didn’t show up.
That is true. Larger groups would help, but they also make the group more impersonal. Elsewhere, I have suggested a variant with a larger group (7 or 9 or so) and a supermajority decision to select a smaller group (3 or 4 out of 7) to the next level. The group is still small enough that faction-building doesn't appear, yet losses of a single member don't impact it as greatly. The supermajority criterion also imparts some aspect of proportional representation.
Most cities (and government entities) allow anyone seeking a political office to get X number of signatures and get on the ballot. If the person can’t get the required number of signatures then they are, in all likely hood not the best person (determined by the voters) for the job any why.
One could craft a pro-triad argument by comparing the "gauntlet" of the other candidates to that of gathering signatures. If the others are reasonably good at picking the best of three, then if you only advance a few levels, you might not have been a good candidate in the first place. The lower levels act as a filter, just like the signature limit does (though of somewhat different nature). To counter, one would have to show that the lower levels are worse filters than simple signature limitations, and one way to do that would be to emphasize the fluctuation problem you referred to previously.
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
