Hygro said:
Hugin, your two (yes its 2, you made it look like 5 but really its 2. Try clicking them yourself) book links don't contradict what I said. One is sort of unrelated (by its summary) about personal heorics, the other is about people not taking action.
There's a key difference between taking action and coming up with the best ideas. Groups of people do not excell at executive abilities, hence why the president is a one man job, not a collective body, whereas Congress consists of many people, because groups are more intellegent.
Ah, terribly sorry about that. Anywho, I fixed them and checked them twice.
But to quickly summarize the point of those collected works, as I want to use them, is that people may be capable of making good decisions but only if people are willing to take the action necessary to make those decisions. It is called the Bystander Effect: large groups of people suppress individual thinking and actions.
Chapter 13 in a psychology textbook by Richard A Lippa (entitled Introduction to Social Psychology
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_3/103-9965055-9521457?v=glance&s=books) recounts, in brief, the tale of one Kitty Genovese. Upon returning to her residents at 3am she is attacked. Thirty-eight (good lord, 38!) of her neighbors in Kew Gardens (where she lived) went to their windows when she cried out but not a single one went to her aid, not a single one even called the police. The murder took a half hour to kill her. The reasoning behind her neighbor's lack of action? Everyone thought someone else would call the police.
If people are unwilling to take action in order to save someone's life how can we expect them to take action in expressing a dissenting opinion from the crowd?
As for your reference, James Surowiecki is a columnist for the New Yorker. Why do I point this out? Because using his work in order to imply that people make good decisions is a logical fallacy (specifically, it is the Appeal to Authority fallacy. Surowiecki is not anymore qualified to write a book on group-think than the random person pulled off the street... of course, that seems to be his entire point). However, even looking past that flaw in your argument, such a book really supports my stance it would seem (from the review).
To make good decisions, crowds need diversity of opinion. People living in the same area tend to hold the same views. Consider how American views (including both right and left Americans) are quite conservative compared to Europe. Consider how people living in the same household tend to have the same beliefs (and, subsequently, when children leave their beliefs change). Consider even how the beliefs of New York City differ from the beliefs of San Francisco.
To make good decisions, crowds need to have the individual members be independent of one another. I've already discussed the Bystander Effect and mob mentality; when in a crowd people begin to loose their individuality.
To make good decisions, crowds need decentralization... meh, I vaguely agree with this one but, as you may notice, large population centers are centralized, hence they are incapable of making good decisions. I would only add that groups of people in any decision-making progress need at least a few people who attempt to keep the group focused on the topic at hand.
To make good decisions, crowds need to aggregate opinions... mesh, this is really true for any decision making process, ranging from a single person on up.
The excerpt from the book itself is rather dubious, the author uses Who Wants to Be a Millionaire as an example to prove his point? All he is showing is that groups of people are more knowledgeable about a wide range of topics yet the conclusion that seems to be drawn from it is that groups of people are more intelligent. From the excerpt, it would appear that Surowiecki failed to distinguish the differences between knowledge and intelligence (and presumably wisdom).
Surowiecki then considers the Challenger explosion, noting that those in the Stock Market "knew" which company was responsible 6 months before the official reports. Making the correct decision in an absolute vacuum of information isn't intelligent, or even knowledgeable, it is damn lucky. Out of four choices of who was at fault, the stock market got one right. 25% chances are pretty good odds.
Anywho
~Hugin
p.s. As a side note, if you ever get the chance, I highly recommend reading Chapter 4 of The Heart of Altruism. Monroe records the tale of a grandmother (with a heart condition and braces on her legs and back) who, single handedly, prevented a rape/murder and beat the would-be rapist nigh senseless, preventing him from getting away. Not particularly related to the topic here in, but quite possibly one of the best real life stories you'll ever hear about (and hilarious, if not in an incredibly serious manner). It is impossible to read that chapter and not come away feeling good about humanity.
and to avoid ties, they could assign an odd number of EVs to the smaller states because a 3rd party candidate wouldn't win anything there anyway. Obviously for big states where they would have a chance, that wouldn't make a difference and ties would still be possible (a 27-27-1 split in California for instance).
