There is a saying. "A modern Girl needs only 2 friends. One to talk with and one to talk about." Now aside from the fact that the saying refers only to women... It is not far from the truth. In any given 3 person grouping one person will have their feelings hurt over a given desision. Mathematically it is a good idea. Interpersonally it would run into consistant reorganization. Groups disbanding and forming in very rapid succession.
Having a large sampling of people that vote privately allows the populase to take loss less personally, as it is always some inpersonal "THEY" that thwarted you.
I don't see hurt feelings being too much of a problem. People will tend to organize into stable groups. That is, you'll have breakup after breakup until you find a stable triumvirate, which will stick around for a while. It's in each voter's interest to form a stable triumvirate, since their vote isn't counted while they're outside of one.
Administrative nightmare. Someone will have to track all the groups, and it will take a tremendous amount of tracking with so many separate organizations floating around, dissolving, and re-forming.
Without close administration of groups, there would be huge potential for vote fraud. I could form a group of me, myself, and I, and elect myself to the next level of voting. I could get my two closest friends to do the same. Now instead of one vote at the next level, my group gets three votes at the next level. Heck, let's skip that level and elect ourselves to the level above it, each of us now supposedly representing nine people, none of whom are going to no-confidence us. And so on.
I also think communication up and down the chain would take too much time, but I could be misunderstanding the point of the chain or its duration or something.
Seems all easily solved with unique citizen identification system and a registration server that tracks each citizen for which groups their in. It's not a hard database problem.
I agree with you in theory. I do. But the reality of citizen tracking does not measure up to the theory. I don't know why this is, I just know that you can do a lot with a dead person's SSN, or a baby's SSN, that it seems you shouldn't be able to do. And that's before you start grouping people into voting blocs and switching them around and tallying actual votes.
There's another interpersonal problem that I think aearon was poking around the corners of. I'm not sure exactly how to voice it. It has to do with the voluntary nature of threesomes and how it is sometimes less than voluntary, or if no one wants you in their group, or whether certain groups would gang up on other groups. I'm going to have to think about it some more, but in my perhaps pessimistic view of human nature, something in this doesn't compute.
I agree that person tracking is hard, but it seems about as damaging in the present system as it is in the proposed FTR. Either way, one can overrepresent oneself on a linear order with the number of personal identification errors one can produce.
It gives tremendous power to the people who were originally grouped with any member in the top level triumvirate. There vote of no-confidence can unseat all the way up the tree whereas everyone elses counts for less.
Secondly, how do you delegate power down the tree since you can't have a single triumvirate deciding all issues.
Thirdly, if you have a rapidly changing government it's likely that more time will be spent in fighting turning specific laws on and off.
Fourthly, if the groups are self picked, then presumably there will be a high degree of consensus on the bottom half, and a high degree of nonconsensus at the top. As you reach the point in which different coalition groups are mixed, it's going to be very difficult to avoid block voting schemes wherein specific interest groups ensure that they distribute their members into groups at that level to bias the results unfairly.
The emergent behavior is going to be sufficiently complicated it seems likely the system will be easy to game.
Second point needs addressing. I've been pondering that one from the time of the first post myself. In the purest scheme, the top level triumvirate would have the power to simply create whatever study groups they saw fit, and rubber-stamp their suggestions.
For three, I don't see changes trickling up to the top that often.
Point four seems to only be true if everyone is a single issue voter for the same issue. At least, I don't see this being easier to game than the current system for real world issues.
Comments 9
Having a large sampling of people that vote privately allows the populase to take loss less personally, as it is always some inpersonal "THEY" that thwarted you.
Just my two cents
Reply
Reply
Reply
Without close administration of groups, there would be huge potential for vote fraud. I could form a group of me, myself, and I, and elect myself to the next level of voting. I could get my two closest friends to do the same. Now instead of one vote at the next level, my group gets three votes at the next level. Heck, let's skip that level and elect ourselves to the level above it, each of us now supposedly representing nine people, none of whom are going to no-confidence us. And so on.
I also think communication up and down the chain would take too much time, but I could be misunderstanding the point of the chain or its duration or something.
Reply
Reply
There's another interpersonal problem that I think aearon was poking around the corners of. I'm not sure exactly how to voice it. It has to do with the voluntary nature of threesomes and how it is sometimes less than voluntary, or if no one wants you in their group, or whether certain groups would gang up on other groups. I'm going to have to think about it some more, but in my perhaps pessimistic view of human nature, something in this doesn't compute.
Reply
Reply
Secondly, how do you delegate power down the tree since you can't have a single triumvirate deciding all issues.
Thirdly, if you have a rapidly changing government it's likely that more time will be spent in fighting turning specific laws on and off.
Fourthly, if the groups are self picked, then presumably there will be a high degree of consensus on the bottom half, and a high degree of nonconsensus at the top. As you reach the point in which different coalition groups are mixed, it's going to be very difficult to avoid block voting schemes wherein specific interest groups ensure that they distribute their members into groups at that level to bias the results unfairly.
The emergent behavior is going to be sufficiently complicated it seems likely the system will be easy to game.
Reply
Second point needs addressing. I've been pondering that one from the time of the first post myself. In the purest scheme, the top level triumvirate would have the power to simply create whatever study groups they saw fit, and rubber-stamp their suggestions.
For three, I don't see changes trickling up to the top that often.
Point four seems to only be true if everyone is a single issue voter for the same issue. At least, I don't see this being easier to game than the current system for real world issues.
Reply
Leave a comment