Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Re: Consensus vs. Majority Voting

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

on 7/16/2002 5:15 PM, don i arkin at shardon5 [at] juno.com wrote:

>       I too think that Sharon V.'s nasty description of majority
> voting's meaning and message is way too simplistic and unwarranted.  It
> all depends on the *attitudes* of the people involved.  I have seen
> plenty of the "I don't care what you think, and I don't have to pay
> attention to you" stuff in efforts to reach consensus as well.

I had no intention of being nasty or curt or vitriolic or whatever.
Certainly people get very odd in discussions hoping to produce consensus
just as they do in majority rule systems.

I _was_ simplifying. I actually have the flu and am on email because it is
all I have the energy to do except swill Robitussen. Simplifying the issues
is a form of short hand -- it does not imply that the issues are simple.

Sorting out issues is the objective of process. A good process helps sort
out issues. A good facilitator doesn't fix everything but they do have
various techniques and approaches that help get all the facts, feelings, and
goals on the table and help people talk to each other. They know how to
mediate.

When people know that they have an "out" with majority votes, there is much
less time spent discussing all the issues or even trying to come to
consensus. I have a long history with majority vote organizations.

There is also the issue of defining a "try." The suggestion was "two tries
at consensus" and then you vote. Defining a "try" would probably be as
complicated as reaching consensus in the first place.

> Obviously, success at true consensus requires lots of time, committment,
> study, and training, not to mention some self-analysis and personality
> adjustment. 

Rob has spoken to this many times. If people do not have the time or the
commitment to the process, consensus won't work and majority voting is
probably the only other option. Consensus requires a group of people who
share goals and have a personal commitment to each other. This is
fundamental to me as a part of cohousing.

>       But, if we are to survive and flourish as cohousing communities
> with truly diverse populations, (some of whom place a much higher value
> on the social interaction aspect of cohousing than they do on the high
> minded but challenging consensus process,)

This is interesting -- I think of consensus as based on social interaction
One has to interact to understand all the issues and find a common solution.

 > Sharon says that the answer
> is easy, just "use better process."

Process is never easy. That is why we have professionals who focus on just
that. When I first heard of cohousing there were particular features that
indicated to me that it was a serious movement (or whatever you call it --
another discussion) because it advocated the use of outside facilitators for
difficult issues and for training in process.

I am not a process person -- there are many on the list who can address ways
of approaching hard issues. I don't have the patience to sit with people to
sort out all the issues. I can think about issues and analyze them and
formulate theories but working them through with people takes a temperament
that I don't have, but highly respect.

Sharon
-- 
Sharon Villines
Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC
http://www.takomavillage.org


_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l