Dyed All Hues

Thinker and Experimenter,


This conversation is closed.

What type of descisions are hindered by a crowd vote?

As I watched Jimmy Wales TED talk, he mentions that some descisions are better in a small group or need to bypass the group vote.

I was wondering what other types of descisions should be made by an indiviudual or a specialized group?

Are checks and balances in the government similar to this bypassing of the crowd vote?

  • Aug 5 2012: It's easy for a vision to get clouded if there are too many voices involved in the process of guiding that vision. This is true in business. There needs to be a leader. However, if that leader gets out of hand, they can be voted out by people who are shareholders via the board of directors.

    That is a different point than whether or not we have true elections. Elections are held to put people in office to represent us (in theory). The more people that vote, the better.
  • thumb
    Aug 5 2012: We do not live in pure democracies because the majority vote does not serve important segments of our societies. We need things like human rights legislation to protect truth and civility for those who might be considered 'different" .
    If the person who can run fastest gets the job, no one in a wheelchair would have a job.
    If you can be turfed out of your apartment for being gay, no one is safe in their own home.
    If you are not allowed to do certain work because a dominant religious group finds you inferiror to all others of another gender, no matter what skills you have, there is no hope for many especially if they are fewer in number or if some members of the subservient group alley with the dominant group out of individual advantage.
    • thumb
      Aug 5 2012: That is why we have U.S. style republics.
  • thumb
    Aug 5 2012: Crowds are stupid crowd vote gives us things like riots, the nanny state, Sarbanes Oxley, etc.

    The idea of a republic is to circumvent the tyranny of a democracy, as a majority will vote itself more free stuff with other peoples money. This is the problem with the western world currently Greece has vote itself more free stuff with borrowed money. The politician uses this to get votes and kicks the problem down the road to the next politician or generation.
    • thumb
      Aug 5 2012: People have the right and need to decide issues from the data but here is a sense of the Sarbane Oxley from Wikipedia. :

      Sarbanes–Oxley, Sarbox or SOX, is a United States federal law that set new or enhanced standards for all U.S. public company boards, management and public accounting firms. It is named after sponsors U.S. Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and U.S. Representative Michael G. Oxley (R-OH).

      The bill was enacted as a reaction to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems and WorldCom. These scandals, which cost investors billions of dollars when the share prices of affected companies collapsed, shook public confidence in the nation's securities markets.

      Countries around the world have seen a need for similar legislation. In other words they have tried to stop the pilaging that some people seem to believe is their right.
      • thumb
        Aug 5 2012: I would have more belief in what you are saying if you spelled Sarbanes Oxley correctly!

        Your post lends credence to what I"m saying about group thinking where you state "Countries around the world have seen a need for similar legislation."

        The fact is SOX was passed almost unanimously by the herd. In 10 years it has yet to produce a SINGLE CASE OF FINANCIAL IRREGULARITY DESPITE AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST TO U.S. ECONOMY OF 1.5 TRILLION DOLLARS.

        Yup only the herd can think up crap like this an outboard motor to speed the U.S. as it circles the drain.
        • thumb
          Aug 5 2012: As I said Par, It is a clip from Wikipedia. Take it up with them or look to yourself or ask your friend Miss Vicious what the opposite of love is.
      • thumb
        Aug 5 2012: Didn't you correct the spelling in your post, I thought you said that was "dirty pool"?

        We are talking about group think/vote SOX is a great bipartisan example of this.

        I would advise anyone to look at more than one source especially if one of them is the liberal dominated Wikipedia.
        • thumb
          Aug 5 2012: I did correct to be responsive to you Pat. So to clarify and repeat, I think it is dirty pool to alter the original unless the point that the responder makes is directlly and rightfully pointing out a spelling error that they are apparently distracted by and wish to see corrected With you I am damned if I do and damned if I do not. I do try to deal with the petty that you and Miss Vicious love to harp upon so that you might eventually get around to the issues. God forbid that I should block your way to the real issues.
      • thumb
        Aug 5 2012: I see this is make the rules up as we go game, I elect not to play.

        I have squarely addressed the issue. Do you have any comment about the heard mentality and voting?
  • Aug 8 2012: Military decisions. That is why the military has a command structure. It is amazing how having the full responsibility of life and death decisions can clarify a person's thinking.
    • thumb
      Aug 9 2012: What if it wasn't a life and death choice, but one of those choices that are inbetween choices of peace and war?

      I can't pop one of those decisions in my head currently, but if I got one, I'll be back! =P
  • thumb
    Aug 5 2012: Last response..........what a load. Are you ever going to get to the issues? No, Randians do not look at the data, nor the issues as their minds is made up and they never help another unless they see the dividend. So sorry. I will not be available for using.
    • thumb
      Aug 5 2012: Oh contrary that is not true. I notice that you put your posts at the top of the page, I guess so I wont get an update message?

      I will agree to disagree.
    • thumb
      Aug 6 2012: Please pat, stop badgering Debra. I always enjoy reading your views, as well as others, but you always find a way to add just a bit of hurtful comments into yours. That makes it very difficult for anyone to hold a decent conversation with you while you make such childish remarks. I don't know any other way to tell you, but in this form. I find disagreeing with someone to be normal, at times, but you could use a bit of diplomacy with your disagreements as most others attempt to do.

      I apologize to pat and Debra for the fact that both members are involved with this incident. I hope we can all cope, move on, and start fresh. I would also like to thank both of you for having very interesting points to mention. Hopefully, you both may continue commenting, if there is more to add.

      Thank you for reading my thoughts.
  • thumb
    Aug 5 2012: I believe that there are times when a leader has to decide and act courageously; instead of waiting for a certain level of approval.
    Some issues are complex or complicated, and if such are not handled decisively, all we'll have are endless debates and indecision.
    Decisions on issues about which a community's principles of living is clear, or about which a company's terms of existence and governance is clear, should be made by leaders.
    Sometimes it becomes cubersome when a leader tries to subject all decisions to public approval.

    Issues that have a direct impact on people needs to be subjected to the people's approval. Controversial issues needs to be debated and subjected to critical reasoning, but a decision has to be made by an authority at some point. When they are controversial issues that have a direct impact of the people, a vote or referendum is important.
  • thumb
    Aug 5 2012: Steve Jobs is a classic example. He pretty much decided everything in Apple. He had everything the way he wanted. This was pretty much a dictatorship. If he disliked an iPhone prototype because he can't put it in his pocket or something, he will tell his employees to change it, despite deadline constraints.

    I can almost guarentee that if Steve Jobs didn't take charge, Apple would have been just another big tech company like Microsoft. He has made some very controversial and questionable decisions, but his decisions were final and his decisions were also very interesting and unique.

    So why did this system work so well? A Dictatorship's best strength is that decisions take no time. There's little to discuss about why we should do this or not. Things get done the fastest under dictatorshop. The biggest downside, as history has told, if the dictator is corrupt, the system will be very flawed. The dictator can make huge mistakes, like Napoleon losing 90% of his army of 100,000 to Russia in that one failed invasion.

    Anyways, yes, decisions are indeed made by a group of specialized people in the government. You don't see any of us participating in Congress or House of Representatives or anything. However, we, the people, have the power to vote for the guys we want to be in charge.