Majority vote and Consensus
It believe people can act with kindness and consideration with either approach.
Which do you prefer in general
A - Better to approve a proposal, so group can move forward, even if that means loosing a few people who can’ live with the proposal
B - Better to have organization stand still, maybe cease to exist than move forward with a policy that some members can’t live with
Neither is better or worst. In one situation you may choose A and another situation choose B.
Being clear about what works for the you in the situation is helpful
Benefits of majority vote:
- People are familiar with it, no training needed
- Less potential talking and debating, motion either passes or doesn’t
- No group paralysis, always can make decision
Problem with majority vote:
- A majority can ignore the less than majority
Benefits of Consensus:
- Can’t ignore a small group because they have blocking power
Problem with consensus
due to living in a society that loves competition, consensus is outside normal social training
- group gets paralyzed by a few people always blocking
- minority can ignore what everyone else wants
- Usually requires some kind of training to switch from win/loose to what can work for everyone
A concern with Consensus
There is one issue that concerns me with straight consensus or 100% saying yes/implement, that is paralysis. What if one person is committed to voting no or blocking and no longer considering what works for everyone. In essence, seeks unilateral control thru blocking.
Humans often don’t handle unlimited power well over time.
Approaches:
Honor the block. Deal with the underlying issue that causes the person to continue to block or until the person leaves by choice or expulsion or group folds due to indecision.
Do consensus minus 1 or two. If all attempts at finding a way forward with one person fail, he/she/they can’t unilaterally stop the group forever.
Limit the number of blocks a person can do. This is a way to say that blocking is highly unusual. If you want to continue blocking more than the limit, maybe what you want and others want is too different.
Override an individual’s block. This is for when a person is seen as abusing or not using a block for its intended purpose. Further explanation below
Temporarily switch to how a decision is made. This process is to be used as a last resort, only after all attempts to work out the issue has been tried. Humans are imperfect beings, regardless of how hard we try. Further explanation below
Processs:
------------- Overri
This is about preventing an individual from intentionally or unitentionally hurting the group.
A member motions – “I move to override person X block”
Two or more members second that.
Facilitator asks these questions in rounds
First round - “Where are you at around overriding person X block ?”
Second round - “Where are you at after hearing everyone speak ?”
Facilitator asks, “Who is willing to consider over riding person X block at next meeting ?”
If more than x say yes, then facilitator sends a notice to all house members that at next house meeting, overriding person X block will be considered.
At next house meeting, Facilitator asks these questions
First round - “Where are you at around overriding person X block ?”
Second round - “Where are you at after hearing everyone speak ?”
If more than x say yes, then person X block is changed to a no vote.
----- Temporarily changing decision making
The process is about acknowledging that humans are not perfect and we are doing the best we can. Most of the time, consensus works. Occasionally we don’t live up to our ideals or just don’t know how to for a moment or just run out of the energy, time and will to do it. Hopefully, we will learn from this and do better in the future.
The most likely change I see is switching from straight consensus, 100% saying yes/implement to an alternative. Some alternatives are consensus minus 1 or minus 2 or more than x% says yes/implement, etc.
A member says “I have lost confidence that proposal x can be resolved thru consensus. I move to step out of consensus for proposal x”. If more 2 members second that, then do stepping out of consensus process ?
Each person has up to 2 minutes to answer these questions.
First round, “Do you experience the consensus process working for this proposal ?”
Second round, “Have you lost hope in the consensus process around this proposal ?”
Facilitator, Asks “Who moves to use alternative process X for this proposal at the next house meeting ?”
If more than X% say yes, then send a note to all members, informing them that at the next meeting, an alternative decision making process might be used for X proposal. If less than X% say no, then process ends.
At next house meeting, Each person has up to 2 minutes to answer these question.
In first round ask, “Do you experience the consensus process working for this proposal ?”
In second round ask, “Have you lost hope in the consensus process around this proposal ?”
Facilitator, Asks “Who moves to use alternative process X for this proposal ?”
If more than X% say yes, use alternative decision making process. Use alternative process.
Explanation of Process:
I strongly urge the house have either an approved alternative decision process to use or the person proposing this says what that alternative decision process is.
Once the crisis hits, the possibility of creating new policy is almost zero and will likely intensify the intensity and length of time the crisis lasts.
The reason to do go arounds is to give people, especially the more quiet, timid personalities space to speak. And, usually the more intensity, the more helpful having a structure is for constructive communication.
The reason for waiting to next meeting, minimum of 6 days, is to give time for people to take in what is going on and let those, who are not at the meeting know, what is coming. This is a major decision, as big as accepting or expelling a member.
There are probably some details missing about the process. My goal is to give an outline. Your group can fill in the details in a way that works for your group.