Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Problems with Voting [was Something faster and easier than> consensus?]

[Becky Schaller (bschaller]

Hi Sharon, I'm not sure I totally agree with your conclusion that consensus
is the best option for building stronger communities.  In fact, I've seen it
work in such a way that it has been destructive to personal relationships.
Perhaps it was misused, but consensus does depend on a lot going right.  It
depends on people being willing to devote sufficient time to the issues, the
ability to listen well and to trust one another.  Others have listed more
reasons.  I have interspersed a few more comments below.

> My problems with voting are:
> 
> 1. Votes don=B9t give you enough information. People can vote positively for
> negative reasons and negatively for positive reasons. Understanding why
> people support or don't support an option is valuable information.

In Roberts Rules of Order, a discussion does take place before a vote.  I
have difficulty imagining such a discussion taking place where people didn't
say why they were for or against a particular proposal.

> 2. The act of voting cuts off dialogue in areas where dialogue needs to
> occur. One result of requiring consensus decisions is that people come to
> understand the concerns of  others AND to understand their own concerns
> better. In the long run this builds a stronger members.

Sometimes it builds stronger community, but not always.  Alway, in voting,
the formal meeting is only a part of the whole process.  People meet and
talk informally outside of the meeting beforehand.
> 
> 3. Voting forces people to place themselves and others in "for" and
> "against" positions. Life is rarely that clear and it is not usually helpful
> to characterize options that way. In a consensus decision there is room for
> a person to express strong concerns and still accept the decision. Or
> express strong understanding of the majority but still be against the
> position. To force people to divide themselves into Democrats and
> Republicans, for example, is destructive to good government.

Voting doesn't force people to divide themselves.  You can have a motion on
the floor and then have a motion to amend that motion.  Before you end up
voting for or against a particular proposal, you might have first voted for
or against several amendments including an amendment to one of the
amendments. 

Voting also allows a person to express strong concerns and still accept the
decision.
> 
> 4. After understanding and accepting all the concerns, another option often
> presents itself that is much better. Voting short-circuits this process.

I wish I knew more about Robert's Rules of Order, but I think a person can
introduce a motion during a meeting.  I have to admit though, I'm not sure
about this.  I've spent most of my life learning about consensus, so my
knowledge of voting procedures is more limited.
> 
> 5. The person with the one negative vote may be "right." It is in the best
> interests of the community to listen to that person. Sometimes that person
> is someone so at odds with the goals of the community that they need to be
> "ejected" but other times they are central to the community and the
> community isn't listening.

Listening, to the one member who may seem to be getting in the way of
everyone else, is a very high level skill and one that I don't think most
people have.   Also, being ejected from the community isn't much of an
option in cohousing communities.  And if it was, would you decide that by
consensus?

> 
> With all the downsides to consensus, it is still the best option for
> building stronger communities.
Other people have other perspectives.


> Sharon Villines

Becky Schaller


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