This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
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?
Topics:
Voting logic
Barry Palmer 50+
Derek Young 30+
I can't pop one of those decisions in my head currently, but if I got one, I'll be back! =P
Dan Geurin 10+
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.
Debra Smith 200+
pat gilbert 50+
I will agree to disagree.
Derek Young 30+
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.
Debra Smith 200+
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.
pat gilbert 50+
pat gilbert 50+
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.
Debra Smith 200+
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.
pat gilbert 50+
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.
Debra Smith 200+
pat gilbert 50+
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.
Debra Smith 200+
pat gilbert 50+
I have squarely addressed the issue. Do you have any comment about the heard mentality and voting?
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+
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.
James Zhang 30+
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.