[EM] Consensus threshold

[Richard Fobes]

On 4/11/2013 12:16 AM, Michael Allan wrote:
 > I think there is a general williness to *consider* a consensus, but
 > not a general willingness to follow it blindly.  ...

Yes, as Michael Allan says below, an iterative process is needed to 
bridge the gap between a calculated consensus and the final official 
decision.  During that iterative process there is head-scratching to 
figure out if anything better can be arranged.

Richard Fobes


On 4/11/2013 12:16 AM, Michael Allan wrote:
>> The psychological value of this method is that it appeals to our
>> natural community spirit which includes a willingness to go along
>> with the group consensus when the consensus is strong enough, as
>> long as there is no hope for a better consensus, and as long as it
>> isn't a candidate that we would rate at zero.
>>
>> Comments?
>
> I think there is a general williness to *consider* a consensus, but
> not a general willingness to follow it blindly.  The popularity of a
> candidate is a recommendation to look more closely at that candidate
> given the fact of his/her popularity.  Here popularity directly serves
> only to arouse my curiosity, "Why is this candidate more popular?
> What do others know that I don't know?"
>
> On learning the answer, I decide whether to follow the consensus.
>
> The proposed method differs in asking me to make the same decision,
> but without knowing the reason for the candidate's popularity.  It
> invites me to act irrationally and enshrines that action as normal
> human behaviour.
>
> As a counter-proposal, consider a broader rationalization of the
> electoral design.  Rather than overloading a single election with
> expectations it cannot fulfil, factor it into two elections: (1) a
> continuous, advisory primary to flush out consensus and dissensus, to
> give people time to talk things over, and decide what to do; followed
> by (2) a decisive election in which they express the decision.  This
> solves the problem of systematic irrationality by allowing for a real
> consensus in the primary, one with reasons behind it, the validity of
> which can be discussed and debated before making a decision.
>