The wisdom of crowds

The wisdom of crowds is considered the average opinion of the group. It cannot be considered a consensus because the end result should not be a compromise of the group. The final opinion will inevitably not be one that everyone agrees with, but a decision made based on all of the independent opinions of the group. The interesting thing about the wisdom of crowds is that it almost always turns out to be correct. This works when guessing how many beans are in a jar but does it work when things aren't so cut and dry? In regards to the current presidential campaigns, for instance, how can we as a "crowd" determine the best candidate and how do we quantify our decision? The election itself is, in a way, a good example of the wisdom of crowds. Crowds must be diverse, independent, decentralized and aggregate and citizens voting in an election are very much these things. The biggest difference is that voting in an election is a private matter and although there is usually much discussion amongst voters leading up to Election Day, they vote for themselves as individuals and not for the group as a whole.

So when it comes to major decisions...those decisions far more important than the number of beans in a jar...is it possible for the wisdom of crowds to work? We see the wisdom of crowds at work every day in the legal system when a jury is picked at random to decide the fate of a defendant and they must all agree on a verdict for it to be legitimate. But how many times are persons wrongfully accused and imprisoned for crimes they did not commit? I feel that there are far too many variables in people's lives that help form who they are and what they believe for the wisdom of crowds to be effective in most real life settings when the desired result is not of a quantitative nature. People are human and to err is human. Big decisions should be made by those best equipped to make them and not by the masses who aren't.