Consensus, Voting or Hybrid

[austin]

I mentioned in the main thread the idea of incorporating some more direct democracy principles into our process. Specifically, a voting mechanism for formalizing a decision.

I obviously see benefits in voting, but the potential costs seem equally apparent. I believe it would be useful for us to examine such as a group, because it is an important matter of how the meetings will be run.

We might want to start the discussion here, and I will participate later this evening.

[benbrucato]

I'm very adamant about the consensus model. It's perhaps as central to the Occupy movement as is the identification of the problem of the corporate influence in governance. Occupy Wall Street is all about the process, and central to that is the slow, messy, muddling practice of reaching consensus. It's not efficient. It's not fast. The issue of asserting consensus is that forcing the priority of efficiency and speed when it's not absolutely necessary is part of where we lose democracy in our communities. The people's mic fits within this tradition as well. I've written about both of these issues here, www.benbrucato.com/?p=215, and welcome those on this board to check it out if this is something they haven't thought much about. I'd rather not occupy this thread with so much content.

Cheers,

Ben

[demodave]

I strongly second these sentiments.

I'm personally far more inspired by the democratic process our movement seems committed to than anything else.

Indeed I believe that such direct democracy (where we all vote on everything and representatives on nothing) and not any particular set of policies, is the real end game.

But can we make it work?

Even a near-consensus (90%) requirement strikes me as unrealistic, especially when considered at the larger end-game level. Could we ever achieve 90% consensus in America on abortion, public school curricula, gay marriage, national security [whether to bomb & invade, torture, wiretap, profile, etc], immigration, or even tax policy?

I don't think so.

Indeed, it seems to be one of the assumptions of the consensus model that 90% agreement often won't be reached, but that dissenters will let their objections "pass" --- so that if everyone plays nice all the time then things will still get done. But what then is the real difference between that and everyone agreeing ahead of time to "play nice"?

In other words, why make an option available if the system depends on its not being used?

It's one thing to hold it out as a hope, a principle, a factor. It's quite another to make it a concrete requirement.

There is I believe a third way here, what Austin has suggested, namely giving dissenters the power of delay & forced deliberation, perhaps even other concessions. Indeed, I would humbly propose that in the end, nothing else could happen --- sooner or later, an 80% majority damn well will (and I believe should) have its way.

Whereas delaying-power has the decided advantage that it can be made very nearly the equivalent of blocking power anyway --- a month, a year, a billion years, wherever that sweet spot might be --- without making it nuclear.

Again, for me, these questions are critically important from the get go, as we either will or won't effectively model a revolutionary distribution of power, starting now.

I second Austin's proposal that we consider the delay/deliberation model over the block/consensus model, discuss it at least, and at some point propose it to the general assembly.

[demodave]

Naturally I meant to say I strongly agreed with Austin, not Ben

I read your piece Ben and its wonderful and I agree so much with so much of what you're saying, and perhaps as a newcomer to the movement I've much to learn.

But for now delay-power still strikes me as the more... possible?... route to the same goal, incorporating I should think all the benefits of the consensus model without the manifest existential danger.

Again, why be concrete & absolutistic about it when the assumption (necessity) is that people won't use the nuclear option anyway?

Why not honor the principle to some chosen proper degree, rather than giving it a singular power to destroy everything?

[flashmob]

Most new business should be proposed and filtered through a working group first. And a majority of the General Assembly should be run by the working groups in succession. Voting on what that working group has voted to be important. That way we can move things along faster. As anyone can join any group it is still democratic.

I also feel like we could meet more than once a week. It would be less stressful in terms of what we have to get to and it would be more practical if research was needed before a vote.

[benbrucato]

On the issue of the theory of direct democracy and consensus on highly controversial issues:

Yes, we won't ever reach consensus on the issue of abortion. What does that demonstrate? To me, it means that there are very strong positions that will fracture our communities, and that maybe they need to be fractured at some point (but not now). We are currently caged together to serve. We are not united by anything but nation and production. And we are more than residents in a nation and slaves. We should be united by our cosmology, religion, conceptions of the meaning of life, our traditions and rituals, and so on - by our culture. We'll need to think long and hard about these things, because that's not how we live now (unless our cosmology is that the world exists to serve a master on this Earth, that our religion is capitalism and science, that there is no meaning in life, that our tradition is working a job without a purpose and our rituals are shopping, etc.).

Direct democracy is inherently anti-globalist. It does not work on a large scale. But to me, the only thing that works on a large scale is totalitarianism, and that's the world we live in today. We will learn through these processes what works at the human-scale, in simplicity. That's beautiful! Because not everything will work. Then we need to decide: do we want those things that don't work at the small, simple, human-scale and are we willing to abandon democracy for those things. Right now in this society, we don't have the option of making that choice. In this movement, we do.

We need to embrace consensus, but also the ability of our communities to separate on the big issues (but down the road). The idea of a harmonious global society is not "utopian" - on a practical end, it's extremely authoritarian once one considers the technical and organizational issues.

We are the 99%, but the 340,000,000 of us will never be unified after we get the 1% off our backs. But let's work on the last part first. The process of doing this will teach us how best to exercise our power, to exercise effective decision-making, to work through conflict, learn from one another, learn which battles are worth fighting and which ones to put on hold, to learn what is ideologically and what is practically driven (and when which is appropriate to make primary), and so on. We are learning how to govern ourselves. We do need to focus on the 1% for now, but understand that the 99% is not, and probably never will be a unified mass. And we would likely be well-served to embrace that fact. But for now, our common enemy and our process of consensus is our strength.

If we think of all the reasons consensus won't work, we need to unpack that. Do we need it to be dealt with now? Are we willing to sacrifice a most central aspect of this movement to do it?

I am of the position that all the issues we need to deal with at this time can be handled by consensus, and those issues that will divide us or cannot practically be dealt with using the consensus model need to be put on hold for now.

[mkathy1]

This is a really good article on consensus - starhawksblog.org/?p=631
and it points out that if it's not done well, voting would be better, but if it's done right, it has a great deal of value. Check it out - she knows what she's talking about - she brilliantly facilitated a GA of about 400 + people at Freedom Plaza a few days ago. I would add that there is no need for people to speak only to say that they agree or disagree with a particular proposal - that's what temp checks/ straw polls are for, and it bogs down the discussion.

[rana]

I think we should stick to consensus. It CAN work and does often. It will become easier as we continue to meet, occupy, and do actions together. The 10/9 meeting was difficult because there were 1-200 people there who probably had never used consensus based decision making before, and a much smaller portion who had. As we continue the movement here in Albany, I think the percentage of people experienced in consensus will increase at each gathering. Once the majority of the group understands the process, it will be easier for new people to jump in.

Also, as we have more established working groups and more specific meeting goals, it will go a little more smoothly.

Just remember that reaching consensus with such a large group takes time, but is totally worth it if it means that the few loudest, most privileged people don't hijack the meeting.

(As long as people don't keep using point of process to jump the stack, just saying).

[demodave]

Well, again, it seems to me that delay-power achieves everything consensus does, without needlessly leaving a nuclear bomb around, and indeed, IS what the movement is really practicing, must be, whether people want to admit it or not.

Calling a spade a spade --- yes the majority will roll over the 15% minority IF it comes to that --- seems like a more honest starting point.

The issue for me isn't whether consensus has advantages over raw majority voting with no concessions to the minority, but what exactly deliberative delay doesn't offer that consensus does.

Having said that, I'm definitely new to the movement and, in line with my belief in voting , will gladly concede to what seems like the majority and, more than that, the system that's already in place and the people with experience at making this stuff happen, especially because I think there's such a blurry line between delaying and blocking anyway.

I hope to continue exploring the question, but more so, in the streets of Albany once the occupation begins!

For now... consensus it is!

I appreciate so much people's thoughtful responses though. So goddamn beautiful I could cry...

I'll try to keep the theoretical musings to a minimum for now... until we hit the streets...

[Dan L]

So, I'll try to cut to the center of my comments on this issue.

I am a supporter of consensus for two broad reasons. First, I see it it as an embodiment of the movement- that we are seeking a new sort of democratic process that focuses on the representation of people as being the measure of its effectiveness and usefulness. Secondly, the consensus process and its focus on seeking agreement on issues through the protection of minority views and gaps in knowledge. Our history seems riddled with situations where we 'had the knowledge we needed' to make good decisions, but because how our process goes about bringing voices into the discussion, simple majority rules approaches simply are not robust enough to allow important discussion and information exchange. It legitimates the majority's position as 'true' and the minority one as being less than, rather than equal. Consensus seeks to level this field in the terms of making all people valuable resources for decision making. Efficiency, then, is the wrong metric by which we should evaluate the process. Efficiency focuses us away from people getting to feel a part of the process (a messy, negotiated, never fully resolved and thus we have to say with forms of discussion that bring us together, not pull us apart). In some respect, we're seeing the end of what just voting can get us since it favors 'those who yell loudest'.

In that end, Delay/Deliberation seems to be the wrong frame to approach it and the minor differences between the two count in the way that a few degree alteration in a thrown ball change its landing position dramatically. Consensus, to me, is about encouraging people to come together again and again because that is the place where we create community, do face to face politics and seek to care for each other in a meaningful way.

Never the less, I encourage a robust, theoretical discussion of these things as time goes on, especially as we hit the streets and, in a sense, the rubber meets the road.

[denmarkvesey]

I think we need smaller GA's in other communities eventually Albany should be Albany period. Others can come but to be able to vote no. If you want a larger capital district GA than yes but this is not that effective I think. We need to use the model of the Zapatista's in my opinion.