Re: [sd-2] Re: SD2 vs. Condorcet: Synthesis / post-SD2
MARC HILL sensaru at yahoo.com
Mon, 11 Apr 2005 13:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
precisely, no algorithm can guarantee that the correct
decisions are being made.
voting simply represents the collective will not the
veracity of that will.
In the end, if it works it will stand. if it doesnt
work, it wont.
what works and doesnt work is not obvious.
--- Mark <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> --"denis bider" wrote:
> > > -M: Denis, I like your approach - you are
> proposing competing
> >D: 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.
> -M: If the executive allowed for this approach, this
> would be SD2
> >D: 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.
> -M: This sounds post-SD2. This is a problem solving
> method that SD2
> selected directors could impliment if they chose. If
> I was one of the
> directors, I don't like the idea of allocating the
> decision to the
> people because of the lack of accountablility. If
> the people are
> wrong then: "So, 51%+ of everyone else was wrong
> too." Everyone gets
> to hide in the crowd. The ego gets an easy way out.
> -Mark, Seattle WA USA
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!