Good Morning, Michael
re: "My offer of free software is not much help, because you
cannot modify it yourself. But you may find someone who
can."
I'm sorry. I'm so out of step I didn't even realize you'd offered me
free software. You're right, though. I couldn't modify it.
re: "The voters may note it, too. Their judgement may suffice.
Or, for your part, you may impose a limit on group size. We
could then experiment. (The system isn't centrally
administered, so individual towns and regions can easily do
their own thing.)
When I first read this, I didn't understand it. It didn't seem (to me)
to relate to the question of finding the optimum group size. Now, I
think you're referring to your software. You're saying those who use it
can decide among themselves what group size would be most effective.
I fear you're several steps ahead of me. I'm still struggling to reason
my way through the human relationships inherent in a selection process
like Practical Democracy. So far, although I've visited the links you
provided, I haven't been able to internalize the material.
re: "Maybe the method is strong enough to handle this without
forcing sortition? We could argue that a tension between
partisan and non-partisan motives - between the particular
and the general - is not an accident of politics, but the
essense of it. And if we expose the voters to this
essential tension, then maybe the method's hierarchical,
tree structure will provide the means to express it and
resolve it. I imagine it would be resolved, bit by bit,
through trial-and-error vote shifting.
Crucially the tree structure allows the resolution to
occur at the level of single votes. A single vote may
simultaneously express both assent and dissent for a
candidate. It expresses a general willingness, on the one
hand, to bend toward consensus (rootward), while being in
tension with a particular interest, on the other hand, that
is more-or-less dissenting (leafward). The deliberate and
sustained casting of the vote is the crucial act that holds
the structure together. So it is very strong. (Structural
strength is needed, because the method is not only for
elections, but also for direct legislative voting.)"
Ouch!!!
Initially, I took the 'method' mentioned in the first sentence to be the
Practical Democracy method. Thereafter, I was lost. Now, after
re-reading it several times, I think you're talking about the way of
your software functions. Forgive me, but I'm unable to respond
intelligently on that topic.
re: "I missed your specification of vote shifting. In which post
was it?"
Members of triads are under no compulsion to select either of their
peers. They may choose as they see fit.
The more I read your post, the more I think we're talking at cross
purposes. I keep thinking we're critiquing the concept of Practical
Democracy, but you seem to be talking about how that concept can be
integrated with your software. Although I've visited your site, I
haven't been able, so far, to get a good handle on what I've read.
Could we start by discussing the purpose of the software, and then,
later, how the software helps achieve that purpose?
Fred Gohlke
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
