Good Afternoon, Frank

re: "I think I may have found a more fundamental point
of divergence in Our perspectives."

Yes.  You've certainly found a fundamental point of divergence in our
perspectives.  Indeed, several points.

re: "Reading Acquaintances /accurately/ requires time, energy,
and a certain degree of familiarity. The system You propose
does not make clear such requirements are met."

When we are motivated to evaluate people and have a week or more to do
so, we are quite effective at it.  Of course, some of us are better at
it than others.  As anyone following this thread can see, I'm quite slow
to judge others.  Of course, my motivation is not to evaluate those I
converse with.  My motivation is to participate in a thoughtful
examination of democratic systems.  Your motivation may be different.

re: "I don't see how Your discussion of (1a) addresses
My concern."

Your concern was expressed specifically as:

  "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."

Paragraph 1a specifically prevents an "identical triad from last time"
being formed, whether by "sheer coincidence" or any other means.  If
that does not address your concern, you'll have to describe the precise
method by which your concern can occur in considerably more detail than
you've done so far.

re: "I find polling and referenda have the same flaws
of recalls."

Indeed you may, but if you feel so strongly on the point, perhaps you
could describe the method you'd prefer.  As I've pointed out, the PD
process does not specify a method.  It simply suggests a mechanism by
which some form of post-electoral control can be implemented.  Adding
your preference might be helpful to those considering the concept.

Fred Gohlke

Good Afternoon, Frank

re: "'When we are motivated to evaluate people and have a week
or more to do so, we are quite effective at it.' -- Even
if true in some cases, a tendency for the statement to
be true in the typical case has not been established.
Some Individuals are far better at doing so than Others
which means Some are far worse at doing so."

Of course, but there is no need for us to establish which have the
talent and which don't.  The people will make that decision, themselves.
PD is a sifting process that lets the people advance those with the
greatest desire and ability.  The less able individuals will not advance.

re: "Even if this premise were granted, in a country the
size of the US, if We presume an average stage of, say,
2.5 weeks in length, the process would take almost 11
months; in a term length of 24 months for Representatives,
PD would result in a system where Incumbents spend almost
half of Their time focused not on doing Their jobs well
enough to ensure re-election but on whether the mathematics
of random shuffling have done Them out of a job altogether,
giving Them no reason to perform in the interest of the
Voters."

Representatives are elected from districts.  Currently, the average
population size of the districts is nearly 700,000.  If we assume the
process is carried out to a single selection, and using the arbitrary
triad lives I used in the outline, it will take 12 levels and 228 days.
However, we should note that the outline provided, "The final phase of
the Practical Democracy (PD) process, electing candidates to specific
public offices, is omitted from this outline because that task is
implementation- dependent.", so specific implementations might be a bit
different.  In any case, you raise a point worthy of discussion, even if
I consider the problem more apparent than real.

Each of the last 6 levels are just a bit less than a month each.  At
each level, the Representative must evaluate 2 other candidates while
they are being evaluated by them.  It is unlikely they will spend the
entire 26 days together.  They will meet and engage in such activities
as they deem appropriate, playing golf, talking, playing cards or any of
the abundant ways people work and play together.  I think it will work
just fine.  You don't.  That's not a bad thing, it's what makes the
world go around.

If the process is adopted in a relatively small community, like, for
example, Frome in the U.K., it will provide an opportunity to uncover
the kinds of glitches that we cannot anticipate until it is tried out in
practice.

re: "Suppose the ideal Representative (IR) of the Voters is
joined with 2 hostile Voters in a triad. IR is widely
recognized by a sizable majority of the Voters as being
the IR, not these 2.  They vote for 1 of Themselves to
advance while IR vote for IR to advance.  Net result, IR
does not advance."

That is precisely why paragraph 1a was added to the process.  It is
possible that a candidate will be eliminated because of the antipathy of
another member of the triad.  Paragraph 1a guarantees the person will
have a fresh opportunity in the next election.

re: "While One might argue the formation of parties (or
their equivalent in PD) where groups seek to have
triads consisting solely of their own Members could
help prevent this scenario ..."

Paragraph 1b, the provision for interest groups and parties, is to help
people align themselves with those of similar interests.  It is not
concerned with the kind of antipathy that results in the exclusion of a
candidate.  Such exclusion need not be ideological.  It can be a
personal dislike, inspired by any of the many emotions that lead to love
and hate.

re: "... a robust election system should be independent of the
number and size of parties."

Absolutely.

re: "In re PEC (post-election control), why would PEC be
considered a good thing?  The average Voter has only
an average Voter's knowledge and understanding of how
best to address the issues, by definition.  Having
Someone to specialize in such address helps to avoid
unnecessary detriments ..."

In a representative democracy, representatives are not required to have
any special knowledge or training.  They are selected because they are
believed to have the intellect and disposition to assimilate the
information necessary to make sound decisions in the best interests of
the people.

re: "... just as having Someone specialize in heart surgery
does likewise."

The two cases are not comparable.  Heart surgeons go through years of
training to address and resolve a very specific problem.  People's
representatives, as stated above, are not required to have any special
knowledge or training.  They are expected to have the intellect and
disposition to address and resolve any of the myriad problems that may
arise during their term in office.

re: "... We not want Voters directing the actions of Their
Representatives.  The very name, "Representative", mean
Someone and Their interests are to be represented by
Someone Else, as opposed to a "Delegate".

PD lets the people select and elect individuals whose gyroscopes are
aligned with the gyroscopes of those who elected them.  In general, the
Representatives can be expected to act as their constituents would wish.
Even so, circumstances are conceivable in which an elected
representative may want guidance before making a particularly momentous
decision.  PD provides the means by which the guidance can be sought, if
the implementers want to provide such an option.

re: "Allowing PEC, except in the cases I have previously
mentioned makes Representatives in name only.  My
preference, therefore, is to allow Representatives
to do Their jobs while the People discuss the
issues/performanceOfTheRepresentative and decide on
Election Day if the Representatives are performing
adequately or whether sufficient consensus exists
for choosing a replacement Representative."

PEC is a concept you added.  I don't have a good enough understanding of
what you have in mind to have an opinion on it.

Participants in the PD process are not concerned with sanctioning
elected officials.  They are concerned with contemporary issues, not
historical ones.  While discussion of a Representative's performance may
come up, particularly if a Representative is in a triad, the triad's
primary concern is not approving or sanctioning the incumbent; it is
with the issues that currently concern the participants, and with
finding the person best equipped to address those concerns.

Fred Gohlke