Good Morning, mk

I heartily support your suggestion of trying the troika method in small communities or organizations. I've wondered how academics would test such a concept but keep stumbling over the fact that the environment needs to offer the potential for corruption.

I'm not familiar with "the Decentralization and Federation principles" you mention. After I post this, I plan to look for the discussion you mentioned.

You ask if the process could be "used directly for decision making on the most important issues". I believe that possibility is inherent in the design. As I said in an earlier post:

"The process is inherently bi-directional. Because each elected official sits atop a pyramid of known electors, questions on specific issues can easily be transmitted directly to and from the electors for the guidance or instruction of the official."

The question of group size is interesting. Obviously, the final structure will be set by those who implement the concept. However, I'd like to give you my rationale for recommending very small groups:

In a pyramiding process of the type under discussion, it is reasonable to think that active seekers of public office will succeed more frequently than passive ones. Thus, after several iterations of the process, we can anticipate that each member of a triad will be a person seeking public office. Under such circumstances, the art of persuasion assumes mounting importance. Those making the selection want desirable qualities in the person they choose. Those seeking selection must persuade their peers they possess the qualities sought.

Whatever other qualities a person seeking office will have, we can assert with considerable confidence that two of them will be a desire for public office and persuasiveness. Our method of selecting public officials uses these traits; all three want the same thing and can only attain it by persuading the others to select them.

When persuasion occurs between two people, it takes place as a dialogue with one person attempting to persuade the other. In such events, both parties are free to participate in the process. The person to be persuaded can question the persuader as to specific points and present alternative points about the topic under discussion. In such circumstances, it is possible that the persuader will become the persuaded.

When persuasion involves multiple people, it occurs more as a monologue with one person attempting to persuade the others. The transition from dialogue to monologue accelerates as the number of people to be persuaded increases. The larger the number of people, the less free they are to participate in the process. As the number of people to be persuaded grows, the individuals among them are progressively less able to participate in the process. They can not question the persuader as to specific points or present alternative points about the topic under discussion. In such circumstances, it is unlikely that the persuader will become the persuaded.

Viewed in this light, we can say that when selecting public officials, a system that encourages dialogue is preferable to one which relies on a monologue. Discussion can best be encouraged by having fewer people in the "session of persuasion". Because the need for a definitive decision implies an odd-number group size, I believe the best group size to encourage active involvement by all participants is three.

Fred

Footnote: I would like to thank the WDDM webmaster for calling attention to my suggestion. flg