Re: predicted vs. actual satisfaction / don't impose on a right minority
- --"denis bider" wrote:
> > > D: Is it acceptable for experts to choose a solution which isNOT a solution which would yield the highest level of satisfaction
among people; in this case, method C?
> > -M: Who says that the people's choice would produce the greatestlevel of satisfaction? This is only what the people would PREDICT
would produce the greatest level of satisfaction.
>D: I am aware of that distinction. In the above context, I meantimmediate satisfaction with the choice being made. Eventual
effectiveness of that choice was not part of the above question.
Rather, it was part of another one later on. To re-clarify the above
question: - if we agree that Condorcet is a method that relatively
objectively reflects the choice that the crowd (not the "mob", but
the people collectively, polled individually) want to make;...
-M: It looks to me like a sophisticated form of polling that extracts
a lot of information out of the participants.
>D:...-then, putting completely aside whether that choice is wrong orcorrect; - is it philosophically correct for anyone to block that
choice and force another one, for whatever reason?
-M: Doesn't majoritarianism block the choice of 49%? There is a
reason that NO nations are organized as democracies. Most nations are
>D: I'm not quite convinced that the mobs in the French revolutionhad a nationwide vote over whether they should ransack and loot
before they actually did so. I tend to think that, if asked to make
their decision in a poll, ransacking and looting is not quite what
they would choose to do.
-M: My understanding is that the direct-democracy set up conditions
of a weak state underwhich the people couldn't be controlled.
>D: Should the people; when polled correctly and their individualopinions aggregated objectively; be treated as adults, or kids?
Adults, as in people with freedom of choice, even when it is wrong;
or kids, as in little beings requiring parental protection?
-M: They should definately be treated as KIDS. Time and time again
the masses prove themselves to be lemmings. They SHOULD NOT impose on
a right minority! Never again should a war-driving Bushmonkey be
elected, nor should a majority impose slavery. Denis, please kick the
>D: Furthermore, who's sure that the parents are right, and when doesthe kid qualify to become an adult?
-M: I hope that this is a parallel to SD2. In SD2, votes are
endorsements of consent to be governed. The PageRank algorithm, by
following the chains of consent, finds the center of consent in a
human trust network. SD2 tries to find the rightest "parents"
possible. People can be adults in their private lives. Politically,
the lemmings are in need of supervision to keep from imposing on
-Mark, Seattle WA USA
- --"denis bider" wrote:
> > >D: This means running SD-2 as a "shadow" method in a group forseveral weeks at a time, and analysing the results and their
volatility, before SD-2 is actually used. denis
> > -M: A BUFFER? I doubt SD2 would need this. If more stability isneeded, then the manditory number of candidates per ballot would be
>D: I think you misunderstood. While I did also consider running SD-2in buffered mode (for example, kicking the directors only if their
rank stays too low for a month), this isn't what I meant above. I
meant that the stability of SD-2 should first be shown by an
experiment, and above I describe one. I wonder though what you would
think of my idea of waiting for a while before kicking established
directors out of office. Around here, the expectation has become
standard that a new government needs 100 days to truly bootstrap
itself before it can really begin doing work. Even if the 100-day
figure is higher than reality, I believe there is a non-zero figure
which is correct. If leaders are replaced more frequently than this
period, no actual work will be taking place.
-M: So you think that an instability could occur due to people
reacting to new people rising in the ranks? This might happen if SD2
was introduced suddenly. An observation period might be prudent.
-M: There would be only five directors - they can have a revolving
door. A bulk of all of the work done would be by the supporting
advisory body. They could be a comingled body of judges, executives,
and legislative advisors. Their relations could remain fairly stable
unless someone falls below a certain rank level.
-M: The directors' main job would be to oversee debates with
impartiality, ask intelligent questions, and to sign laws and
executive orders. No exclusive staff would be attached to them. They
would be freebirds who could fly in and out. They might not even
change their physical offices, only their work-flows, powers and
scheduals would change.
>D: In a nationwide deployment, do you really think it possible tomanage with no buffer?
-M: Yes. I would imagine that a statecraft community would already be
organized and stable before the official turnover. I would imagine
that most of the top ranked politicians would infiltrate into an old-
constitutional system, and that the turnover would be smooth and
>D: Recall that Italy has had more than 50 governments since 1945,and that this is generally not perceived as overly effective. Best
-M: They have many competing parties. They have instabilities that
SD2 doesn't have. SD2 would build much more coherence.
-Seattle WA USA