ABSTRACT
In a social choice process, there is a single ultimate criterion: the distribution of influence. The importance accorded to each alternative in a choice process depends upon the relative amount of influence exercised on its behalf. The distribution of influence may be viewed as the outcome of a continuing "game" which has been going on under rules that a majority of the players have been free to change at any time. The distribution of influence may be such as to paralyze action altogether. The central decision-maker merely records the relative influence exercised by the competing interested parties. The case for central decision rests upon the assumption that it is possible for a competent and disinterested decision-maker to find in any situation a value premise that uniquely determines the content of the public interest.
