Consensus vs. Majority

In a voting-based decision-making system, what should constitute a 'decision'? Should decisions be based on majority or consensus votes, or something in between? Perhaps important decisions should require consensus, but who decides what is important. I am not sure what would be the most effective, but my best guess is a two-thirds (66.6%) majority. The main reason for this is that it might prevent the organization from becoming divided into two factions, which could occur if there was many 51-49 majority decisions. What are your thoughts? Join in the discussion...

Firstly, great idea and great site. Secondly, within in the Green Party, which runs along these lines, concensus is defined at a 2/3 majority of decisionmakers. Any member can block consensus, which then results in a vote. Thus, a large majority can be effectively blocked by the 33.3% minority denying them the vote. Instead of two factions, you have multiple factions, and power is more diffuse in the group. In short: The factions that survive are those that learn to work cooperatively and adapt to the situation.

great site, i wish it was around earlier

PREFACE: I have worked in consensus in small organisations all my life.

Consensus is hard as it can continually selects for the worst outcomes...in terms of efficiency, best practice, as the worst option is often chosen slow as not to offend the 'slower' 'dimmer' 'younger' 'older' members of a group. To get to the best option often requires a great deal of time and energy from other members in delivering 'education' (which co-ops are about) this leads to 1)burn out, and 2) bore out (of both the educators and the learners) this leads to group erosion, and a restriction of active membership to a core group and an apathetic rump, or the dissolution of group.

Answers?? Still looking.

Majority rules. Plain and simple.

I'm fond of the supermajority idea--a major decision that can't muster 2/3 member support is probably a bad idea. It should also lead to more interplay between the various groups--more conversation and more compromise.

Isn't it amazing that we are still having this discussion after thousands of years of human existence? One would have thought that a solution would have been found by now.

I believe that the answer to what percentage of a group determines consensus or majority should be determined by each group individually. And within that group, each member should be able to contribute equally to that determination. The percentage should be fluid -- meaning that each member can change their input concerning the percentage at any time. Thus, when enough of the members submit their change notice, the consensus/majority percentage is changed to the newly determined percentage. Of course, each member is also able to contribute equally to the determination of the percentage of the members that it takes to change the consensus/majority percentage.

In the system located at http://www.1062.org this is possible. There are also 55 other settings that regulate the decision making and voting process, and each member has equal access at all times to change those as well.

In other words, everyone has equal access to everything that regulates the decision-making process at all times. There is virtually no room for anyone to say that they have not been able to equally contribute to or control the process. The organization can move forward without being held hostage by anyone or anything.

The only other major concern is the integrity of the overall process that is controlled by the level of understanding of each member concerning each issue. This is discussed further in the blogcoop section:
http://www.blogcoop.com/liquid-democracy-for-decisionmaking.html

Reverse the question. Now ask for a show of hands. Is a super majority still required?

Consider a group that has fallen onto hard times. Someone moves to dissolve the organization. After much discussion a vote is taken. 51% vote to dissolve. Motion fails. We must continue.

Now someone else moves to continue operating. Much discussion. A vote. That motion also fails for lack of a super majority. What now? No one wins, status quo rules, but status quo has been defeated.

I suppose the "continue operating" question is out of order. Maybe you are not supposed to reverse that question, but it still demonstrates how a super-majority system assures that the status quo is protected. The bias built into the system is that you must continue to do whatever you are currently doing. Why bias the decision toward a minority that wants to preserve the status quo.

Likely in a situation such as the above, people will leave the organization if they possibly can and while they can. I've been part of an organization that ran on consensus, had a intentionally weak organizational structure and ended up being taken over by members wielding lead pipes when things did not go their way. Those driven out regrouped and started a new organization while those who took over ran the organization, and its considerable assets, into the ground.

I've once heard democracy described as controlled civil war. We make a contract in which we accept that we will sometimes win and sometimes lose. The minority on a given matter peacefully yields, but the individuals involved may be in the majority on some other matter. But importantly, and often missing in our assessment of how things work, the majority must show restraint. If a minority feels too oppressed, they stop peacefully yielding. They leave the group if they can or stop cooperating.

A super majority might be appropriate where there is a concious and well-agreed intent to protect the status quo. You commonly want to discourage constitutional (bylaw) changes. But building a bias toward the status quo into every question will result in an unresponsive organization.