A Common Consensus

Peter Emerson pemerson at deborda.org
Wed Aug 13 13:17:53 PDT 2008


Dear OSLIST, 

 

There are many ways by which people of different opinions can come to a
consensus.  On non-contentious topics, there might be near unanimity and
it's easy enough; on something rather more controversial, it should be
possible with a bit of give-and-take to come to a common consensus; and on
very divisive subjects, as for example in disputes on sovereignty, all
concerned may have to just settle for their best possible compromise.

 

So, how can this be done?  In consensus politics, (one of many
methodologies), the first step is to allow all options to be 'on the table';
(in a word, it is essential to avoid the trap of asking closed questions,
and not least because these often lead on to a majority vote, which is a
highly divisive tool).  The question, then, should never be, "Are you Serb
or Croat, Hutu or Tutsi, Georgian or Ossetian?" and so on.  Nor should it
be, "Do you want 'this', yes or no?"  That was the question which Bush and
Blair asked on Iraq in the un Security Council in Oct 2003: Resolution 1441.
Instead, the question should have been open: "What shall we do about Iraq?"
Similarly, in ethnic disputes, the question should again be open: it is not,
or should not be, a question of, "Croatia, independence, yes or no?" or even
"Croatia independent or stay in Yugoslavia?"  The question should have been
open: "What should the status of Croatia be, and how should she relate to
her immediate neighbours?"  

 

Now in theory, if the subject is contentious, and if society is plural and
democratic, then there will inevitably be more than two options 'on the
table'.  Let them all be there (as long as they comply with the un
Declaration on Human Rights).  Then, let the debate commence, and
participants should be able to ask questions, seek clarifications, propose
amendments, or whatever.  At the same time, a team of consensors should keep
the list of options 'on the table' (or on the computer screen) up to date.
If a new idea is proposed, it may be added; if two ideas are very similar,
they may be composited; and if one idea is no longer deemed wanted, by
everybody, including its original proposer, then it may be deleted.

 

If, at the end of the debate, there is only one option left, this may be
taken to represent the verbal consensus.  If, however, a number of options
remain, let us say five of them, options, A, B, C, D and E, then it may be
advisable to go to a consensus vote, a vote in which they will be asked to
state their preferences on these options.  Then, in the count, preferences
mean points; and the option with the most points is the winner.

 

Thus, to win, an option needs lots of high preferences and very few low
preferences: the outcome depends upon literally everybody!  This means,
during the debate, that if I want my option to win, I should talk not only
to my supporters, but also to my erstwhile opponents.  If I can persuade
s/he who was intending to give my option a 5th preference, to now give it a
3rd or even a 2nd preference, that will be a huge help.  In other words, the
very prospect of a consensus vote encourages all to engage in dialogue, or
even 'polylogue'.

 

Before we come to the count on these five options, let us first consider a
purely hypothetical instance.  100 voters.  If they all give option D, say,
a 1st preference, D will get the highest possible score, (100 x 5 =) 500.
If, also, they give option A their 5th preference, A will get a final score
of only (100 x 1 =) 100 points.  And if, again, 100 voters give option B a
3rd preference, or if 50 voters give option E a 2nd preference and the other
50 voters give E a 4th preference, then both B and E will get a score of
(100 x 3 =) 300 or (50 x 4 + 50 x 2 =) 300.

 

In practice, life will probably be a little more varied.  But basically, all
five options will get a positive result; furthermore, something(s) will be
above the mean, and something(s) else below.  Consensus voting always gives
an outcome.

 

If the winner gets a very high score, between 450 and 500, then we may talk
of near unanimity.  If the winner gets 400-450, then that's a consensus.  If
it's 350-400, that's probably just a best possible compromise.  And if it's
anything less than 350, then obviously some or all of the other options are
at about the same level, so maybe it's better to treat the vote as a straw
poll and to resume the debate.

 

Now there may be some voters who do not want to cast a full slate of five
preferences.  There might even be some who prefer to abstain.  Democracy,
however, is for everybody, so the mathematics of the voting system should
actually encourage all concerned to participate to whatever extent they feel
able.  In consensus voting, then, the voter who casts m preferences gives
his favourite just m points, (and his 2nd preference m-1 points, etc.).

 

So he who casts only one preference gives his favourite just 1 point;

She who casts two options gives her favourite 2 points (and her 2nd
preference 1 point);

He who casts three options gives his favourite 3 points (his 2nd preference
2 points, and his 3rd preference 1 point); but best of all, therefore, 

she who casts five preferences gives her favourite the maximum 5 points,
(and her 2nd preference 4 points, and so on).

The difference, then, is always 1 point.

 

In theory, if everyone states not only their favourite option but also their
compromise options, it will be possible to identify the collective
compromise.  This is the basis of the consensus vote, the technical name for
which is the Modified Borda Count.

 

We first used it in an exercise in Belfast in 1986: we got both sides to
come together  - politicians, paramilitaries, priests, police and the
public, over 200 in all - and this was still 8 years before the ceasefire;
we sat in concentric circles; we paused for silence; no one spoke for too
long; all options were accepted, so everyone respected the right of others
to have different aspirations; and then, at the end of the day, with 10
options on the table, we moved to a consensus vote, and thus we found a
common consensus.

 

Since then, the methodology has been used quite a few times, both here and
abroad, in Bosnia for example, with electronic multi-preference voting; and
so far anyway, it has always worked.

 

Best regards,

 

 

Peter Emerson

Director, The de Borda Institute

36 Ballysillan Road

Belfast BT14 7QQ

 

028 90 711795

078 377 17979

 

 <mailto:pemerson at deborda.org> pemerson at deborda.org

 <http://www.deborda.org> www.deborda.org

 

The Borda count "is the best protection ever devised from the tyranny of the
majority."  Professor Sir Michael Dummett.

 


*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html

To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20080813/d1341f7e/attachment-0015.htm>


More information about the OSList mailing list