4 ms·

In democracies there's a tension between wanting to have have elected representatives represent smaller numbers of people so as to be more responsive on one han

In democracies there's a tension between wanting to have have elected representatives represent smaller numbers of people so as to be more responsive on one hand, and wanting them to represent more people so that you can keep the number of legislatures not too far over Dunbar's number.

dsr_ 9y ago
If you're willing to have more layers, this is reasonably easy to accomplish. Let's call Dunbar's number 100. Have every group of 100 people elect their own L1 representative. Have every group of 100 L1's elect an L2. L4 is 100 people who represent 100,000,000, larger than most countries and any of the US states, and L5 represents 10 billion, the whole world population for some time to come. Each L representative can have meaningful relationships with all of their immediate constituents and about half the people of their own level.
- fouc 9y ago
  > Dunbar noted that the groups fell into three categories—small, medium and large [..] with respective size ranges of 30–50, 100–200 and 500–2500 members each. I think it would make more sense go with the smaller category, and perhaps use a number around 49. Keep it odd to avoid a tie. L3 represents 117 thousand, L4 represents 5.7 million, L5 represents 282 million, L6 represents 13.8 billion At current population of 7 billion: 144 million L1 representatives. 2.9 million L2 representatives. 60 thousand L3 representatives. 1,225 L4 representatives. 24 L5 representatives
  - DougWebb 9y ago
    I'm pretty sure we've already got 24 L5 representatives, but they only represent their own interests instead of everyone else's.
    - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
      The argument for increasing the # of levels would be that the increase in effectiveness of representatives who only have to act in the interest of $dunbar number of people below them while working amoung the $dunbar number of people on the same level to influence the person on the level above more than cancels out the decrease in effectiveness from increased layers of abstraction.
- billpg 9y ago
  How are the groups-of-100 at each level organized? Is this plan vulnerable to gerrymandering? My (possibly naive) fix is to allow people at each level to join any group-of-100, as long as the size remains at 100. (For one to join, one has to leave.)
dragonwriter 9y ago
While there are complexity issues with large legislatures, I think that it's actually a good thing to keep the size of the legislature well above Dunbar's Number. You may want complete stable working relationships in an executive council or cabinet, but you really want (I would argue) a significant share of relationships in a legislative body (even within a governing majority) to be characterized by arm's-length distrust.
- pouetpouet 9y ago
  about cabinet size: https://arxiv.org/abs/0804.2202 https://arxiv.org/abs/0804.2202
- your-nanny 9y ago
  Why?

dsr_ 9y ago

If you're willing to have more layers, this is reasonably easy to accomplish. Let's call Dunbar's number 100. Have every group of 100 people elect their own L1 representative. Have every group of 100 L1's elect an L2. L4 is 100 people who represent 100,000,000, larger than most countries and any of the US states, and L5 represents 10 billion, the whole world population for some time to come. Each L representative can have meaningful relationships with all of their immediate constituents and about half the people of their own level.

fouc 9y ago
> Dunbar noted that the groups fell into three categories—small, medium and large [..] with respective size ranges of 30–50, 100–200 and 500–2500 members each. I think it would make more sense go with the smaller category, and perhaps use a number around 49. Keep it odd to avoid a tie. L3 represents 117 thousand, L4 represents 5.7 million, L5 represents 282 million, L6 represents 13.8 billion At current population of 7 billion: 144 million L1 representatives. 2.9 million L2 representatives. 60 thousand L3 representatives. 1,225 L4 representatives. 24 L5 representatives
- DougWebb 9y ago
  I'm pretty sure we've already got 24 L5 representatives, but they only represent their own interests instead of everyone else's.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    The argument for increasing the # of levels would be that the increase in effectiveness of representatives who only have to act in the interest of $dunbar number of people below them while working amoung the $dunbar number of people on the same level to influence the person on the level above more than cancels out the decrease in effectiveness from increased layers of abstraction.
billpg 9y ago
How are the groups-of-100 at each level organized? Is this plan vulnerable to gerrymandering? My (possibly naive) fix is to allow people at each level to join any group-of-100, as long as the size remains at 100. (For one to join, one has to leave.)

dragonwriter 9y ago

While there are complexity issues with large legislatures, I think that it's actually a good thing to keep the size of the legislature well above Dunbar's Number. You may want complete stable working relationships in an executive council or cabinet, but you really want (I would argue) a significant share of relationships in a legislative body (even within a governing majority) to be characterized by arm's-length distrust.

pouetpouet 9y ago
about cabinet size: https://arxiv.org/abs/0804.2202 https://arxiv.org/abs/0804.2202
your-nanny 9y ago
Why?