We had a conversation earlier in the year about forms of convergence and action planning that did not require voting. In February I tried out the 4N method that Michael Herman and I hammered out (Michael named it...he gets the credit for News Now Next Nuts - and he can have it!). It worked really well. The record of the conversation and the story are on The Meta Network at http://community.tmn.com/tmn/swebsock/0007715/0679001/CS41/viewitem.cml? 22+6+54+23+0+0+1+x#here
Not voting is empowering. People see what work needs to be done and pick up the tasks. People move by choice to the work that holds the most meaning for them, and new structures emerge. I think voting places predetermined boundaries about what needs to happen. As much as we can say that "every issues is still important" voting implies that some issues are more important than others, even if things are ranked strictly according to where people's energies are at. The only time I have found voting appropriate was at the end of a one day meeting, when my sponsor wanted things prioritized. At that time, we gave each person five dots and asked them to rank the most important issues for the group. That was all. There was no follow up within the OST meeting on these issues, they simply ranked them and left them at that. With a clear understanding of what we were doing, no one felt slighted. But in contexts where the voting then leads to groups to work out those issues, I have found people generally miffed at the way that whole thing goes. Maybe it's me (Harrison might think so...he once described the aversion to voting as "Canadian.") Another thing that bugs me about voting is that it says "wasn't that Open Space thing interesting? Okay, let's get back to reality..." In other words, it doesn't model the new reality, but reinforces the old one. I have had people express exactly this disappointment to me. They have said "Oh rats...we were really starting to get somewhere..." And this "getting somewhere..." Doesn't that echo John's notion of democracy as a journey? I don't think that democracy IS voting, nor do I think that voting in and of itself is democracy. To reduce one to the other removes the role and responsibilities of the citizen to act and improve the system. Perhaps real democracy invites this action. Voting is just a way to see what's popular. So OST is "democratic" if it invites folks to be citizens, encourages them to use their feet, and provides a way for outcomes to unfold without domination from powerful interests. Enough musing for now. Chris --- CHRIS CORRIGAN Consultation - Facilitation Open Space Technology Bowen Island, BC, Canada http://www.chriscorrigan.com [email protected] * * ========================================================== [email protected] ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of [email protected], Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
