Re: SD2 vs. Condorcet: Synthesis / post-SD2

Mark parashakti108 at
Mon, 11 Apr 2005 19:05:44 -0000

--"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