Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Consensus decision making

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

On Aug 11, 2008, at 10:57 AM, Racheli Gai wrote:

> I don't understand why you claim that, and in what way working by  
> consensus is even possible if there are no limits on what counts as  
> legitimate grounds for blocking.

> then the community has a right to decide to move on, overriding the
> objection. This isn't at all the same as "ignoring" an objection.

Why call one objection an "objection" and another a "block." What is  
an "objection" and what is a "block"? My argument is that once you go  
down this road, you are not working toward consensus but toward  
majority vote. One person's "frivolous" is another person's "serious."

What happens to the person is over-ridden when the rest of the group  
pretends the group is still using consensus decision-making? Is the  
decision to exclude this person? Then why not take up that decision  
directly? Too difficult?

My point is that this process is one of redefining consensus and  
pretending it is still consensus.

> I think that when we talk about "commitment", it needs to be a two- 
> way  street, which includes people's commitment to treat the process  
> seriously, not to try  to get their way no matter what.

I think this is true which is why I am questioning whether consensus  
is a good decision-making method when people can join a group or  
remain in a group without a commitment to a common goal.

How can consensus be meaningful without a common goal?

One alternative would be to use a form of preferential voting which is  
less divisive and more representative of everyone's preferences than  
majority voting. Robert's Rules of Order describes it as more  
representative than majority voting.

Defining alternatives for preferential voting can be a very positive  
process and the lack of common goals or frivolous treatment of the  
decision-making process avoids arguments or belabored discussions.

In preferential voting, the result should represent the first or  
second choice of all the voters, depending on the number of  
alternatives and the degree of variance in the goals of the voters.

My favorite method is the "five stars" ranking of alternatives. It  
allows me to vote for all the alternatives equally  -- stating no  
preference between them, or to rank two equally and the others lower  
or higher. Most situations have several alternatives and for each  
person some of them maybe equally acceptable.

Defining alternatives also allows the person who is on the fringes of  
the group to participate in the defining of alternatives and thus to   
"have their say" without dominating the process.

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