Decision-Making Capacity
Speed of decisions
The maximum time needed for a decision on level n if initiated in a group is (3*2n-2)*(D+V) where D is the length of discussion period, V is the length of the vote period of one run of the resolution procedure. While both the decision time and the number of participants are growing exponentially with level, the base of the exponent is 2 for time and a few tens for the number of participants. Below is a short summary of decision times and number of people affected using 1 weeks for both the discussion and vote period, and 30 for minimum and 80 for a maximum of node degree assuming a fully balanced tree. Note that in case decisions are initiated in a higher node, decision times can be as fast as 2*(D+V) if no alternatives are proposed in lower levels, and representatives have plenty of opportunities to “bring up” already bubbling up alternatives, thus shortening the overall discussion process.
Two years for a country, and 3 and a half a year for the whole world to decide on a controversial issue seems to be pretty fast time.
If shorter decision times are needed, it can be catered for by “emergency” decisions, where discussion is only conducted by representatives, no wait for amendments to bubble up, and voting period takes a reasonably short time. But note that matters needing immediate response are normally belong to the executive branch, not the legislative one.
| level | Worst decision time (week) | Min participants | Max participants |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 (group) | 2 | 30 | 60 |
| 1 | 8 | 900 | 3.600 |
| 2 | 20 | 27.000 | 216.000 |
| 3 | 44 | 810.000 | 12.960.000 |
| 4 | 92 | 24.300.000 | 777.600.000 |
| 5 | 188 | 729.000.000 | 46.656.000.000 |
| 6 | 380 | 21.870.000.000 | 2.799.360.000.000 |
It is worth to note that there are two kinds of dead-ends in the proposed decision making process: if the dummy alternative wins, or if there is no Condorcet winner. But those dead-ends cannot be used to hinder the decision-making by a minority: if the dummy alternative wins, that means that either there is no problem, or the solution space was not explored sufficiently. In the case of no Condorcet winner, the priorities of the voters are not transitive enough which means that further discussion in the society is needed.