SD2 vs. Condorcet: Synthesis

> -M: Denis, I like your approach - you are proposing competing 
> algorithms.

I pondered about this yesterday, and I think what I stated was a false
dillemma. I proposed the two approaches (Condorcet and PageRank) as mutually
exclusive, when they aren't. The problem is, who frames the choices for the
Condorcet method? And who determines there is a problem to be decided upon,
at all?

I now think a core group of leaders could be elected with an SD2-like
approach, and the job of this core groups of leaders would be to manage
mundane tasks and identify major problems when/if they appear.

When a major issue appears which exceeds the mundane, the core group of
leaders would be responsible for framing the problem, and people would be
asked to elect, with an SD2-like approach, a task force of experts most
suitable to solve it. If the experts were fairly unanimous in what a
solution should be, that solution would be implemented.

Otherwise, if there was disagreement among the experts, they would be
responsible for framing competing solutions in the form of A, B, C, D. The
people would then decide, according to the Condorcet method, which of the
competing solutions yields the highest satisfaction.

When the decision is made, the task force of experts would be dissolved.
Possibly another task force of executives would be elected to implement the
solution, and another task force to supervise the implementation; etc.

Sounds like a lot of decision-making, but that's good. Things function
better when there's more input and more people give it some thought. With
proper technological execution, such active participation in voting could
become routine. People could become used to doing it as part of their daily
routine every morning.