Consensus for WDDM

1. Discussion of the proposals
2. Simple majority vote: 50% + 1 vote is enough for a proposal to win
3. Consensus building: further deliberation to achieve the required level of acceptance of the winning proposal; there would be no time limit, this phase would continue until enough citizens (or members of a legislature, or a group) accept the proposal as the best possible under the given circumstances, and are willing to support and promote it and live with it and by it, even if they initially voted against it. This phase can be suspended for arbitrary time periods if it is clear that the required level of consensus cannot be achieved at the given time, and it can be resumed whenever there is indication that consensus can be achieved.
Here, in the ideal circumstances, the required level or enough would mean 100% of all citizens or legislators. However, for example to ease the transition from the current situation to this 100% ideal, one could initially require only the consensus of the 75% of citizens or legislators, and increase this figure for example by 1% every year or every few years until the 100% ideal is achieved.
4. Implementation of the decision only when the required level of consensus is achieved.

Here, in the ideal circumstances, the required level or enough would mean 100% of all citizens or legislators. However, for example to ease the transition from the current situation to this 100% ideal, one could initially require only the consensus of the 75% of citizens or legislators, and increase this figure for example by 1% every year or every few years until the 100% ideal is achieved.
Comments: This is a description of - the government by consensus - that has been practiced by many Native Americans for centuries before their first contacts with Europeans. It was however not the "pure" consensus requiring unanimous vote, which could hardly ever be achieved because of the variety of personal views. It was practical consensus in the following sense: They also made decisions by "majority votes", but after a vote, its implementation was postponed until everybody was comfortable with the majority decision. Until everybody affected by a decision understood it, and was willing to except it and abide by it. Thus a vote could be followed by a long period of consensus building - discussions, explanation of the benefits of a decision.

There is no obstacle why we could not use such a proven process in our modern society. It could be equally well used in small groups or in large societies, equally well in the future direct democracy as in the legislative bodies of the present "representative democracies." The process would be as follows:
Such a decision-making process would ensure much better continuity and stability of the governments even in the current representative systems, and generally would not force big disruptive changes upon the unprepared population by the decision of a simple slim majority. The consensus building process would prepare people for necessary changes, and should decrease the degree of violence in the society to a minimum.

Literature: I have seen several sources describing various aspect of Native American decision making process. The most comprehensive known to me is the following book: Native America and the Evolution of Democracy
[www.ratical.org]

This information provided by Miroslav Kolar, March 24, 2005

Submitted for consensus approval June 10,2006 by BrEggum

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com

Yes, it is posted here: Proposal for Non-Adversarial Decision-Making: Combining the Majority Vote with Consensus Building

You may have noticed that Doug Everingham recently sent to the WDDM list the following e-mail:

Anyone contemplating building a grass-roots organization should
benefit by seeing accounts of successful "nested networks" [www.sociocracy.biz] or
[members.optusnet.com.au]

Especially the first site is really interesting for us. It talks about the Principle of Consent:

The "principle of consent" means that a decision has been taken only when none of the circle members who are present have any argued and paramount objection against that decision.

The consent principle differs from "consensus" and "veto". With consensus, the participants in decision making are "for" a decision. In consent decision making a "not against" is required. With a veto, arguments are not necessarily given. In consent decision making, an argument must always be given, as well as an indication as to whether the objection is paramount or not.

But this is exactly what I had in mind when I was writing about consensus on the above page - keep consideration/discussion/modifications until there are no principal objections against a proposal that has the largest support, until the minority that was initially against it, is comfortable with it so that they would not boycott its implementation. And the Native American government by consensus (as I came to understand it) was exactly the same - the same "consensus" that sociocracy calls "consent".

mk, [democracy.mkolar.org]