Good Afternoon, Andrew Myers

Re: "This seems like a terrible system that will lead to tyranny.
In a system with n levels, you need only something like
(2/3)^n of the leaf voters on your side to win. With 7
levels that's 6%."

I don't understand why you think PD would lead to tyranny.  The 'leaf
voters' (I'm not sure what they are, but assume they are at the fringes
of political thought) may form a party and be assigned to triads with
other members of their faction to select their best advocate, but they
have no other means of aligning themselves.

At each level, those who seek to advance must persuade two randomly
chosen peers they are best qualified to advocate the common interests of
the group.  Whether or not those who are 'leaf voters' can influence the
selection depends on the value of their perspective to the other members
of their triad.

During the process, participants will necessarily consider both common
and conflicting interests.  The ability to advance will depend on an
individual's ability to reduce the diverse interests of the group
members to their essential element - their effect on their peers - and
conceive a resolution that appeals to the other members of their triad.

That does not imply tyranny.  On the contrary, it implies resolution of
diverse interests by compromise.

Fred Gohlke

Good Morning, Kristofer

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

re: "In a simpler "three people at random choose one among
themselves, rinse and repeat" method, the concentration
effect excludes minority points of view while amplifying
majorities."

This is an excellent point, but it raises the question of whether this
result is good or bad.  If the process totally excludes minority points
of view, it would certainly be bad.  However, when the majority
incorporates parts of minority views, amplifying them is beneficial, and
we have reason to believe that will occur.  It is far more likely that
the process will accommodate minority points of view, even if only a bit
at a time, and will spread them beyond the minority that originally held
them.

The work done on small groups, like that cited in the outline by
Esterling, Fung and Lee in the U.S. and Thamy Pogrebinschi in Brazil,
gives us reason to expect minority views will be accommodated rather
than rejected.

When small groups of people with differing views deliberate they tend to
seek a consensus.  I have little doubt that, at the lower levels, there
will be instances where emotional rejection occurs.  I have equally
little doubt that, as the levels advance, cooler heads will prevail.
Triads will work through their differences, adopting those parts of
minority views that are rationally shown to be in the common interest.
Changes will not be revolutionary, but they will be persistent,
incremental and pervasive.

re: "That is why Fred added point 1b to the procedure: the
idea is that a group of people with views held by say,
10% in general, could declare to be a group of its own
and run the procedure separately."

Absolutely.

First, it is imperative that minority views get an audience, otherwise
we'd still believe the earth was the center of the universe.

Second, not all those who hold a minority view are good advocates for
their perspective.  Non-standard views must be presented with force and
reason.  Those who hold the views must be allowed to decide who are the
best advocates of the concept.

Third, the quality of an idea should not be judged by the number of its
adherents.  New concepts usually start out very small.  If they have
value, over time others adopt them.  The important thing is that, even
in its infancy, a new idea must have an opportunity to attract
adherents.  Allowing people to declare membership in a faction lets
'birds of a feather flock together'.

re: "The final level (council) would end up having at least
one representative of the group instead of that group
being whittled down into nothingness by participating
directly in the unaffiliated process."

While that may be, I'm inclined to think most of those who reach the
final level will bring with them convictions supporting all or parts of
the minority views.

re: "I'm still a bit wary regarding the concentration of
power, however.  Groups that are more like parties
would have a coordination advantage compared to those
that are less like parties, particularly in the later
rounds."

I think this may be true, but the effect is no more deleterious than the
existing system where parties control the candidates.  The much more
important consideration - in my view - is that the process gives a
strong voice to non-partisans, who are completely excluded from
party-based systems.

re: "suppose that 20% of the representatives at the next to
last level are aligned with party X and have an implicit
agreement that whenever there are more than one X member
in a triad,"

I don't think we even need imagine an implicit agreement.  When two
members of a triad have similar views, the odds favor one of them
advancing to the next level.  This will happen, not because of an
agreement, but because partisanship is a natural phenomenon.

re: "... it might end up with council representation exceeding
20% because there aren't enough triads to go around to
evenly distribute the X members.  Small towns could also
have a concentration problem like that."

This is a difficult point for me because it seems to assume that X
members are committed to a single, all-encompassing ideology that X will
force on the community.  I doubt that will be the case.  It is likely
there will be fanatical members of X, but their fanaticism will limit
their ability to advance.  Members of X that advance are much more
likely to be individuals with the wit and wisdom to rationally persuade
others that there is value in the X view.

re: "However, finding out whether that is indeed a serious issue
would probably take some simulation."

I absolutely agree, but I am unable to provide a simulation.  It is my
sincere hope that the ideas have enough merit to encourage others to
pick up on them and provide the kind of supporting rationale the concept
needs to gain acceptance.  Whether that will ever happen is an open
question because the process is truly democratic, so it has no
champions.  It offers no rewards for individuals or vested interests; it
gives no individual or group an advantage over others.  Hence, it offers
no incentive for power-seeking individuals or groups to advocate its
adoption.  Instead, the cultivation of the concept falls to those who
can envision a better future for society.

Fred Gohlke

Good Morning, Frank

re: "In re intensity: it is not obvious how
this is necessarily true."

Everyone who participates in the PD process is as much a candidate for
public office as they want to be.  At the lowest level, when everyone in
the community is participating, a large percentage of the participants
will have no desire for public office.  Such individuals will drop from
the process quickly.  Those who advance to the upper levels will do so,
in part, because they have a desire to do so.

As a result, at the higher levels, the triads will be made up of
individuals who want to keep advancing.  They will be anxious to do two
things, persuade the others in their triad of their own suitability for
advancement, and to uncover any weaknesses in the two people they are
competing with for selection.  They will thoroughly 'vet' their
opponents because it is in their own best interest to do so.  That will
be intense.

re: "In re press: this does nothing to alter the fact Voters
in earlier steps will have already chosen Representatives
far from ideal once all the information is available."

PD is a filtering process.  From the perspective of the members of each
triad, the people who are doing the actual choosing, the individuals
they select to represent their interest are as ideal as they can make
them.  Will some of those chosen at the lowest level be poor choices for
public office?  Almost certainly.  And some of them will be, just as
certainly, excellent choices for public office.  During the
re-iterations of the process the less qualified individuals will be
filtered out, in part because, as the process advances and the field of
candidates narrows, the press will publicize details about the remaining
candidates.

re: "The fact advancing Representatives are matched with
Strangers suggests vetting will be harder than the
current system.  If I don't know the Others in the
triad, I don't know how to investigate Them as
thoroughly nor would necessarily have sufficient time.

It doesn't take most of us very long to decide the value of those we
meet.  Face-to-face meetings allow us to observe the non-verbal clues
people emit and they give us insight into the attitudes of our
acquaintances.  All-in-all, we're pretty good at evaluating people.  It
is possible the PD process will raise an unprincipled individual to
public office, but it will be the exception rather than the rule.  The
important thing is that the process raises individuals to public office,
not parties.  Even the most cunning individual, if elected, can't do
much damage because (s)he stands alone.

re: "Having several weeks in the average stage, however,
suggests decisions about whether to replace the current
Representative will begin long before the current One
has had sufficient opportunity to demonstrate Their
decisions have been good on balance, suggesting further
a trivialization of the notion of representation.

The triads are not deciding to replace their representative.  They are
deciding which member of their triad best represents the interests of
the group.  If it happens that one of the members of a triad is a
current representative, that individual may be called upon to justify
decisions made during their term in office, but the primary purpose of
the process is to select the individuals best equipped to address and
resolve current problems.  Prior decisions are only important to the
extent they show the candidate's 'gyroscope'.

re: "I will not be making any such decision unless I can
ensure I will advance to the next level."

It is unlikely you can guarantee your own advancement.  You could, I
suppose, bribe the other two members of your triad to select you, but
that's a losing proposition.  If you advance, you will have to bribe two
new people.  The problem is that it's possible the attempt to do so will
cause one of them (who is looking for character weaknesses in you so
they can improve their chances of advancing) to cry "Foul!", revealing
you as an unprincipled cheat.

The only way you can be reasonably sure of advancing is if you have a
clear understanding of the community's concerns and are able to persuade
your peers that you are the best equipped person to represent their
interests.  If you don't, others will.

re: "Do You have probabilistic analysis showing the odds of
a Voter in PD altering the outcome of an election versus
simple majority of the community?"

Nope.  I'm the layest of laymen, a former truck-driver; a profession
that gave me a lot of time to think carefully about the world we live
in.  You may denigrate thought, if you wish, but I find it rewarding.

re: "If the Peers are chosen at random, how is
there accountability?"

The people who advance are accountable to those who select them.  Each
elected official sits atop a pyramid of known electors, Those who
implement the process can provide a mechanism so the electors can recall
an elected representative.  That is the essence of accountability.

Fred Gohlke

Hi, Frank

Thank you, very much, for your comments.  It seems to me we are getting
closer to the heart of the differences in our views.

re: "I'm not sure You are appreciating or accounting for
just how long it takes to vet Candidates and how hard
it is to uncover information both relevant to Voters
and detrimental to the Candidates' aspirations."

I think the difference in our views on this point is in our assessment
of those who become candidates.  At present, we know candidates for
public office are committed to serve their party, not the people.  Once
these unprincipled people achieve leadership positions, they infect our
society because morality is a top-down phenomenon.  This distorts our
view of the kind of people who seek public office.

The problem is not the people; it is a political system that rewards
politicians who are willing to sacrifice their integrity to attract
party backing; a system that renounces virtue and is ruled by cynicism.
It leads us to believe that everyone is as deceitful as our political
leaders.  We are misled by the high visibility of deceit and corruption
in our culture.  The idea that it is inescapable leads to the
self-defeating notion that trying to correct it is futile.

That's a shame because the vast majority of our peers are decent people.
They have to be, for society could not exist otherwise.  When we
include everyone in the political process, the upright people,
uncommitted to anything except those who advance them to public office,
will swamp the deceitful individuals who presently dominate our
political system.

My guess is that this is a core difference in our views which we may be
unable to resolve.

re: "I think You also overestimate People's ability to
read body language and underestimate People's ability
to fake such language."

I can't say you're wrong since I can't document my faith in people.  But
I can ask you a question that bears on the topic:  Do you play bridge?

If you do, I'd guess that you get a lot of insight into the nature of
the people you play with.  You can tell which ones are risk-takers,
which are methodical, which do not enjoy the game, which you'll be happy
to have as a partner.  Obviously, if you don't play, this will mean
nothing to you, but those who do will understand how it relates to this
discussion.  We 'read' our acquaintances, constantly.

re: "By "replace the Representative", I mean in the subsequent
election cycle, if out of sheer coincidence an identical
triad from last time is formed, deciding whether the Person
selected to represent at the next stage is chosen again."

This is not the only concern.  Another, even more threatening, is that
personal antipathy between between members of the triad prevents one or
more people advancing.  To prevent this, Paragraph (1a) of the
description says, in part:

"The random grouping mechanism must insure that no two
people are assigned to a triad if they served together
in a triad in any of the five most recent elections."

This ensures that, at the lowest level, advancement will neither be
aided or hindered by grouping the same people in a triad.

re: "Your "bribe" response doesn't disprove My premise
or the associated conclusion."

You said you would "not be making any such decision unless I can ensure
I will advance to the next level" and I only commented on the difficulty
of ensuring your own advancement.

I had already pointed out that "The triads are not deciding to replace
their representative.", which seemed to me to be the focus of your
premise.  It now seems clear that I didn't understand your premise or
conclusion.

re: "In re recall: I have never been impressed with recalls;
in My estimation, using recalls for reasons other than
criminal activity tends to give too much weight to the
passions of the public and too little weight deliberative
contemplation and patience."

I'm not sure I agree, but recall is not the only option available to
those who implement the process.  As mentioned in the description, the
bi-directionality of the process "offers those who implement the process
a broad scope, ranging from simple polling of constituents to referenda
on selected issues and recall of an elected representative."  It really
depends on how the process is implemented.

Fred Gohlke