top of page
Divers  D Header 980 x 560.jpg
Diver's Dilemma

One of the excuses used by those who oppose the use of referendums is that people aren't qualified to make difficult decisions. In this true story we look at a good decision making process and why it worked.

Insurance companies don't like paying out and that caused a problem for a diving club whose members regularly towed the club's boats to launch sites. One weekend one of the club members ran into the back of another car while towing but the insurance company refused to pay up because the driver hadn't told them that he used the car for towing a boat. Many members felt the driver had been badly treated. It wouldn't have occurred to most that this would affect the insurance, and if it did it should be on insurance application forms. Some members wanted the club to make a contribution to the repair bill but others pointed out that if you run into the back of another car it's your own fault.

The subject was to be discussed at the annual general meeting and it was thought the debate would be heated, but it ended with a decision that was supported by 90% of those present.

Rather than just starting a debate the first step taken was to agree a two stage procedure. The first step would be to decide whether or not the club should make a contribution. If it was decided the club should help then how much should be given would be discussed. After the discussion everyone would then write down what they thought was the right amount and the average of the suggested amounts would be worked out. A vote would be taken and if a majority approved that figure it would be given to the driver. The process was clear and fair and everyone agreed to it.

Some might think that this would end in deadlock because half the people present would think the sum too much so they would vote against it, but that didn't happen.

When it came to the votes most people wanted to make a contribution and 90% of those present voted in favour of the amount found by averaging the suggestions, so what was going on?

It's all about the system used. They couldn't agree on the outcome, the amount given, but they could agree on a fair process, but that process wasn't imposed. Everyone present had a say in whether or not the process was used and if anyone one had come up with a better way of doing things that process would have been used instead. Everyone knew that whatever decision was reached many would disagree with the outcome. What mattered to everyone was that the process was honest and transparent. When the final vote was taken it wasn't in favour of the exact amount given, it was 90% approval of the process used. Process matters but there's more to this example than that.

The two votes were on different types of decision. One was moral, whether or not to help, the other was 'technical', how much to give. Some say we shouldn't have referendums because people don't have the expertise needed to make good decisions but this moral/technical divide in decision making shows the situation in a different light.

We are good at moral decisions. In this case everyone simply imagined themselves in the position of the driver. We all knew we could misjudge a braking distance or allow a moments distraction to lead to an accident. We could all imagine being let down by an insurance company, but we also knew that we would still have some responsibility for what happened. This ability to imagine ourselves in another's situation, our empathy is a product of evolution. It is the source of morality and it is this that qualifies us to make moral decisions.

In this case the 'technical' decision, how much to give was easy to work out but in many situations expertise will be required so how do we deal with that? It's easy. We do what the politicians do. We call in the experts or we delegate the decision to those that have the necessary expertise. The Chancellor of the Exchequer doesn't set interest rates, that's too important to be done by a politician so it's done by a panel of experts at the Bank of England. This combination of evolved morality, expert advice and delegation when required give us all we need to ensure that decisions made are good ones.

What we don't have is a process that will let the people of Wales put good systems into place. That is what Campaign for Democracy's reform process has been designed to do.

bottom of page