scholarly journals Collective Decision Making in Human Crowds: Majority Rule Emerges From Local Averaging

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (10) ◽  
pp. 52a
Author(s):  
Trenton D Wirth ◽  
William H Warren
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Majority Rule ◽  
Collective Decision ◽  
Collective Decision Making ◽  
Local Averaging

scholarly journals Majority-rule opinion dynamics with differential latency: a mechanism for self-organized collective decision-making

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 305-327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco A. Montes de Oca ◽  
Eliseo Ferrante ◽  
Alexander Scheidler ◽  
Carlo Pinciroli ◽  
Mauro Birattari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Majority Rule ◽  
Opinion Dynamics ◽  
Collective Decision ◽  
Collective Decision Making ◽  
Self Organized

Voting Procedures: A Summary Analysis

1983 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannu Nurmi
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Majority Rule ◽  
Collective Decision ◽  
Collective Decision Making ◽  
Simple Majority ◽  
Simple Majority Rule ◽  
Research Tradition ◽  
Voting Procedures ◽  
Marquis De Condorcet ◽  
Condorcet Paradox

Roughly two centuries ago the Marquis de Condorcet and Chevalier Jean-Charles de Borda originated a research tradition – by no means a continuous one – that over the decades has produced results casting doubt on many widely used collective decision-making procedures. The phenomenon known as the Condorcet effect or the Condorcet paradox is the well-known problem of the simple majority rule. The paradox bearing the name of Borda is less commonly known, but it also relates to a procedure that is widely used, namely the plurality principle. Either one of these paradoxes is serious enough to make these procedures suspect unless one is convinced that the situations giving rise to these paradoxical features are extremely rare. In this article we review some voting procedures that have been introduced in the literature. We aim at giving a synthesis of the assessments of procedures with respect to various criteria.

Democratic Reason

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hélène Landemore
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Majority Rule ◽  
Collective Decision ◽  
Collective Decision Making ◽  
Wisdom Of Crowds ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Form Of Government ◽  
The Many ◽  
Selection Of

Individual decision making can often be wrong due to misinformation, impulses, or biases. Collective decision making, on the other hand, can be surprisingly accurate. This book demonstrates that the very factors behind the superiority of collective decision making add up to a strong case for democracy. The book shows that the processes and procedures of democratic decision making form a cognitive system that ensures that decisions taken by the many are more likely to be right than decisions taken by the few. Democracy as a form of government is therefore valuable not only because it is legitimate and just, but also because it is smart. The book considers how the argument plays out with respect to two main mechanisms of democratic politics: inclusive deliberation and majority rule. In deliberative settings, the truth-tracking properties of deliberation are enhanced more by inclusiveness than by individual competence. The book explores this idea in the contexts of representative democracy and the selection of representatives. It also discusses several models for the “wisdom of crowds” channeled by majority rule, examining the trade-offs between inclusiveness and individual competence in voting. When inclusive deliberation and majority rule are combined, they beat less inclusive methods, in which one person or a small group decides. The book thus establishes the superiority of democracy as a way of making decisions for the common good.

scholarly journals The wisdom of stalemates: consensus and clustering as filtering mechanisms for improving collective accuracy

2020 ◽  
Vol 287 (1938) ◽  
pp. 20201802
Author(s):  
Claudia Winklmayr ◽  
Albert B. Kao ◽  
Joseph B. Bak-Coleman ◽  
Pawel Romanczuk
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Majority Rule ◽  
Group Living ◽  
Opinion Dynamics ◽  
Collective Decision ◽  
Collective Decision Making ◽  
Simple Majority ◽  
Wisdom Of Crowds ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
The Wisdom Of Crowds

Groups of organisms, from bacteria to fish schools to human societies, depend on their ability to make accurate decisions in an uncertain world. Most models of collective decision-making assume that groups reach a consensus during a decision-making bout, often through simple majority rule. In many natural and sociological systems, however, groups may fail to reach consensus, resulting in stalemates. Here, we build on opinion dynamics and collective wisdom models to examine how stalemates may affect the wisdom of crowds. For simple environments, where individuals have access to independent sources of information, we find that stalemates improve collective accuracy by selectively filtering out incorrect decisions (an effect we call stalemate filtering). In complex environments, where individuals have access to both shared and independent information, this effect is even more pronounced, restoring the wisdom of crowds in regions of parameter space where large groups perform poorly when making decisions using majority rule. We identify network properties that tune the system between consensus and accuracy, providing mechanisms by which animals, or evolution, could dynamically adjust the collective decision-making process in response to the reward structure of the possible outcomes. Overall, these results highlight the adaptive potential of stalemate filtering for improving the decision-making abilities of group-living animals.

scholarly journals The wisdom of stalemates: consensus and clustering as filtering mechanisms for improving collective accuracy

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Winklmayr ◽  
Albert B. Kao ◽  
Joseph B. Bak-Coleman ◽  
Pawel Romanczuk
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Majority Rule ◽  
Group Living ◽  
Opinion Dynamics ◽  
Collective Decision ◽  
Collective Decision Making ◽  
Simple Majority ◽  
Wisdom Of Crowds ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
The Wisdom Of Crowds

ABSTRACTGroups of organisms, from bacteria to fish schools to human societies, depend on their ability to make accurate decisions in an uncertain world. Most models of collective decision-making assume that groups reach a consensus during a decision-making bout, often through simple majority rule. In many natural and sociological systems, however, groups may fail to reach consensus, resulting in stalemates. Here, we build on opinion dynamics and collective wisdom models to examine how stalemates may affect the wisdom of crowds. For simple environments, where individuals have access to independent sources of information, we find that stalemates improve collective accuracy by selectively filtering out incorrect decisions. In complex environments, where individuals have access to both shared and independent information, this effect is even more pronounced, restoring the wisdom of crowds in regions of parameter space where large groups perform poorly when making decisions using majority rule. We identify network properties that tune the system between consensus and accuracy, providing mechanisms by which animals, or evolution, could dynamically adjust the collective decision-making process in response to the reward structure of the possible outcomes. Overall, these results highlight the adaptive potential of stalemale filtering for improving the decision-making abilities of group-living animals.

Islands of Stability: Engaging Emergence from Cellular Automata to the Occupy Movement

2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Pickering
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cellular Automata ◽  
Black Box ◽  
Collective Decision ◽  
Collective Decision Making ◽  
Occupy Movement ◽  
History Of ◽  
The 1960S

"Instead of considering »being with« in terms of non-problematic, machine-like places, where reliable entities assemble in stable relationships, STS conjures up a world where the achievement of chancy stabilisations and synchronisations is local.We have to analyse how and where a certain regularity and predictability in the intersection of scientists and their instruments, say, or of human individuals and groups, is produced.The paper reviews models of emergence drawn from the history of cybernetics—the canonical »black box,« homeostats, and cellular automata—to enrich our imagination of the stabilisation process, and discusses the concept of »variety« as a way of clarifying its difficulty, with the antiuniversities of the 1960s and the Occupy movement as examples. Failures of »being with« are expectable. In conclusion, the paper reviews approaches to collective decision-making that reduce variety without imposing a neoliberal hierarchy. "

Corruption and Anticorruption in Democratic Athens

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Participatory Democracy ◽  
Collective Decision ◽  
Civic Culture ◽  
Collective Decision Making ◽  
Alexander The Great ◽  
Political Equality ◽  
Individual Judgment ◽  
Collective Judgment ◽  
Hidden Knowledge

The chapter examines a major corruption scandal that involved the Athenian orator Demosthenes and an official of Alexander the Great. This episode reveals how tensions between individual and collective decision-making practices shaped Athenian understandings of corruption and anticorruption. The various and multiple anticorruption measures of Athens sought to bring ‘hidden’ knowledge into the open and thereby remove information from the realm of individual judgment, placing it instead into the realm of collective judgment. The Athenian experience therefore suggests that participatory democracy, and a civic culture that fosters political equality rather than reliance on individual expertise, provides a key bulwark against corruption.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document