The justification of utilizing the collective wisdom into politics -after Fukushima-

Abstract

The proposal that we should use the collection of twitters into politics has been made recently. It is thought of as the collective wisdom, which has been explained with mathematical models and simulations. We would like to justify the utilization of the collective wisdom with standing ovation game, where preferences are modified and transformed through interacting with each other and these changes can be perceived. Feedback effect can be seen: that is, both the effect from individuals’ preferences into the whole and the adverse effect grow increasingly. Then some property of wholeness emerges. Those process exactly justify using the collective wisdom into politics. We can make a decision whether to make a nuclear-free society or not through using the collection of twitters.

Deliberative democracy has been proposed for a couple of decades. It is an alternative to the aggregate democracy or the interest group democracy which are based only on the mere aggregations of people’s preferences and interests. We can see in the deliberative democracy that preferences are changed locally and these changes are made to be visible. Feedback effect between individuals’ preferences and the whole can be seen. The results of authentic deliberation among ordinary people could be legitimate.

We see no difference between the collective wisdom of twitters and the deliberative democracy. Both are based on people’s preferences and interests, but both make them change into public through interacting locally. Then new property emerges. The deliberative democracy has been said to be intrinsically democracy itself, so is the collective wisdom democracy.