I managed to find a few 'interesting' things in connection with Consensus decision-making in wikipedia.
(Apologies if the following links are a bit mangled. I personally don't like URL shorteners as they make things more cryptic.) One person questioned whether consensus was like a veto system where everybody had to agree with a decision (i.e. the proposer has to make compromises on the initial proposal to get everybody to agree)? If so, isn't that what happens already anyway with regards to how bills are put through parliaments? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Consensus_decision- making#Doesn.27t_get_the_point_of_consensus_vs._majority_rule> With regards to how consensus differed from majority voting, one of the linked examples mentioned the following consensus voting 'method': <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision- making#Use_of_colored_cards> The Consensus decision-making article mentions that Religious Society of Friends (commonly known as Quakers) currently use consensus in their meetings: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Society_of_Friends#Decision_making_among_Friends> Aside from the religious in manner of the proceedings, it seems that the actual mechanics of it work well. However, in the section titled "definition of majority", 'Roadrunner' makes the interesting point that "...the Politburo Standing Committee of the Chinese communist Party appears to make decisions via consensus, but this doesn't make the decision making democratic." There are a few other things discussed in the Discussion/Talk page apart from Roadrunner's point. Examples include what happens to consensus decision-making when trust is low and the use of Liberum Veto by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the distant past. Also mentioned in the main article page is the Green Party's use of a consensus/voting hybrid decision-making method: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus-seeking_decision-making> Thanks, Gervase. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
