A funny thing happened on the way to the quorum

In a recent fascinating article (“Swarm Savvy”, Science News, May 9, 2009), we learn how swarms of ants, bees, fish, and primates (yes, that includes us) make collective decisions that are usually correct. Evolved over millions of years, with extinction at stake, an effective, quorum-based decision making process has emerged. It works wonderfully for honey bees, rock ants, and guppies. Humans? Not so much.

A quorum is the minimum number of deciders required to agree before an option is selected. In a monarchy, the quorum is one (the Queen). In a democratic parliament, it is a simple majority. For a swarm of bees searching for a new home, it might be as little as fifty out of ten thousand. In order to maximize the probability that the quorum will make a correct decision, three conditions must be met:

1. The number of voters (quorum size) must be large enough,
2. The votes must be independent, i.e., the individuals cannot copy the vote of another (who may be mistaken), and;
3. An adequate number, or range, of alternatives must be considered.

The first two conditions are very important (and interrelated). For instance, if we assume that each decider has a 1 in 10 chance of selecting a really bad alternative, then the Queen alone has a 10% chance of monumentally screwing up. But if she accepts the counsel of her husband, their joint probability of failure falls to 1%. And in an independent parliament of 200 souls, the odds of selecting that awful option are a vanishing 1 out of 10,000.

But note the requirement of independence. If the King copies the Queen’s vote just to please her, there is really only one vote and the odds of failure jump back up to 10%.

It should be painfully obvious that the third condition is crucial as well. If for any reason the most desirable option is not among those deliberated, then it cannot be chosen. You might be asked to select the most desirable means of commuting twenty five mile to work from among two choices, roller blades or a bicycle. But your decision might be quite different if a third choice, a Ford Focus, were added to the list. (Ever so much better for those New England winters).

Human quorums can be very effective when the above conditions are met. Being judged by a jury of twelve is remarkably accurate. Population-wide votes (propositions or referendums) tend to accurately reflect society’s sense of what is right. But human quorums can go disastrously wrong, as exemplified by a number of our state governments (witness the morass in California). The culprit? One party rule.

One party rule nearly guarantees that conditions 2) and 3) are violated. Because of ideology, the party in power tends to vote in lock-step, violating the independence requirement. Also because of ideology, options which do not fit that party’s platform are not even considered.

Let us consider a real world example. The Democratic Massachusetts legislature just decided to raise taxes by over $1 billion in order to close a yawning budget deficit. Because of ideology, power politics, and fear of losing perks, the Democrats voted nearly unanimously with their leadership. There was little independence of vote among the Democrats, and the Republicans are so paltry in number as to be meaningless. It was as if there were a single, Democratic monarch casting a single, “supervote”.

Meanwhile, the feckless Republicans had offered up a series of five proposals which, in toto, reduced spending by over $1 billion -- balancing the budget in a different way. But these proposals were never seriously considered and hence, were not among the range of options considered by the legislature at large. Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown (R-Wrentham), sums this up quite nicely (“Reform before revenue”, Boston Globe, 6/16/09).

Whether Democrat or Republican solutions are better overall is for the ideologues to argue. But that the system is broken is undeniable. A quorum in name only, the Massachusetts legislature is sick and nearly guaranteed to churn out suboptimal decisions.

Alas, the situation shows little sign of improvement. In a recent election to replace the disgraced former speaker of the house, Sal DiMasi (hmmm – another outcome of one-party rule?), the Republican candidate garnered less than 5% of the vote. (“Ex-aide snares DiMasi's seat” Boston Globe, 6/17/09). Massachusetts, you may continue on your course and become as bankrupt as California. Or, you may consider the true meaning of quorum and attempt to restore it.

Equality or excellence?

It was with some concern we recently noted that, at five local high schools, the valedictorians and salutatorians were all girls. And in our own high school, twelve of fifteen senior honors students were girls as well. That boys are not represented in proportion to their demographics is starkly exposed. Boys are not achieving on tests that girls are knocking out of the park.

No one seems to know exactly what is going on here. Various cultural and social theories of the causes are proposed. Potential solutions are suggested – encouraging the boys, providing incentives, perhaps tutoring, or remedial studies.

But in the goal of equal results, there is another approach that can be taken. Let’s fiddle with the tests so that girls’ achievements are leveled and the boys are then seen to be equal.

After all, that was good enough for the City of New Haven (Ricci v. DeStefano), as confirmed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Sotomayor, Pooler, and Sack). When equality is the goal, it is only excellence that suffers – a small price to pay.

A conflict of interests...

All that needs to be said about government involvement in the market was revealed to us by Barney Frank yesterday (6/4/09). GM (the newly formed Government Motors) had determined to reduce costs by rationalizing logistical needs in the face of foreseeable business volumes. To that end, GM decided to consolidate parts warehouses and a GM distribution center in Norton, MA, was slated to be closed.

Enter Rep. Frank (D – MA), a veteran of the auto industry, who issued an-offer-that-could-not-be-refused to GM executives. The executives understandably caved and GM has reconsidered that closing

Now, the relative merits of closing or not closing that warehouse may be argued. But what is not debatable is that GM made the original decision based on an analysis of business conditions, while Barney Frank’s intervention was wholly political, intended to enhance his power and extend his tenure.

That, alone, is reason enough to look askance at government programs that might be better served by the market. Single payer health care springs to mind.