The purpose of talking about prediction-normalized voting here is to give an example of the possibility that there are other methods of reflecting the “collective will” than the current “elections,” i.e., “voting by a paper on a certain date and time for a specific person,” highly dependent on the weather and fake news.
What’s interesting about the prediction-normalized voting is that it shows us the possibility of empowering the idea of “collective intelligence (a diverse group can behave quite smartly)” and that we don’t need to systematically fix “smart people” by some mechanism in the first place.
The concept of “foolish crowd”, however, cannot be separated from another question related to the system “how to consolidate opinions”?
So, what kind of consolidating system can be considered?
Is there any way to integrate as many opinions as possible into large-scale organizational (e.g., national) decision-making in detail, while preventing mobocracy?