Democracy in Peer Reviewing: On how to avoid dictator PC chairs and other adventures.

I've written a short rambling on conference reviewing and why people, for selfish reasons (!) should be significantly more positive then intuition suggests, especially when reviewing for selective conferences.

In fact, it turns out that simple straightforward statistics show that for a 15% acceptance rate conference, each individual reviewer should accept roughly 31% of his assigned papers in order to have a voice in the final outcome. 

Since many smart people reacted perplexed when shown this, I decided to write about it. And also since I am too lazy to do a thorough job for CACM, I am posting it here instead, together with a set of comments I've received throughout time. Feel free to rant on this as you see fit.