Dear OSLIST,
There are many ways by which people of different opinions can come to a consensus. On non-contentious topics, there might be near unanimity and it's easy enough; on something rather more controversial, it should be possible with a bit of give-and-take to come to a common consensus; and on very divisive subjects, as for example in disputes on sovereignty, all concerned may have to just settle for their best possible compromise. So, how can this be done? In consensus politics, (one of many methodologies), the first step is to allow all options to be 'on the table'; (in a word, it is essential to avoid the trap of asking closed questions, and not least because these often lead on to a majority vote, which is a highly divisive tool). The question, then, should never be, "Are you Serb or Croat, Hutu or Tutsi, Georgian or Ossetian?" and so on. Nor should it be, "Do you want 'this', yes or no?" That was the question which Bush and Blair asked on Iraq in the un Security Council in Oct 2003: Resolution 1441. Instead, the question should have been open: "What shall we do about Iraq?" Similarly, in ethnic disputes, the question should again be open: it is not, or should not be, a question of, "Croatia, independence, yes or no?" or even "Croatia independent or stay in Yugoslavia?" The question should have been open: "What should the status of Croatia be, and how should she relate to her immediate neighbours?" Now in theory, if the subject is contentious, and if society is plural and democratic, then there will inevitably be more than two options 'on the table'. Let them all be there (as long as they comply with the un Declaration on Human Rights). Then, let the debate commence, and participants should be able to ask questions, seek clarifications, propose amendments, or whatever. At the same time, a team of consensors should keep the list of options 'on the table' (or on the computer screen) up to date. If a new idea is proposed, it may be added; if two ideas are very similar, they may be composited; and if one idea is no longer deemed wanted, by everybody, including its original proposer, then it may be deleted. If, at the end of the debate, there is only one option left, this may be taken to represent the verbal consensus. If, however, a number of options remain, let us say five of them, options, A, B, C, D and E, then it may be advisable to go to a consensus vote, a vote in which they will be asked to state their preferences on these options. Then, in the count, preferences mean points; and the option with the most points is the winner. Thus, to win, an option needs lots of high preferences and very few low preferences: the outcome depends upon literally everybody! This means, during the debate, that if I want my option to win, I should talk not only to my supporters, but also to my erstwhile opponents. If I can persuade s/he who was intending to give my option a 5th preference, to now give it a 3rd or even a 2nd preference, that will be a huge help. In other words, the very prospect of a consensus vote encourages all to engage in dialogue, or even 'polylogue'. Before we come to the count on these five options, let us first consider a purely hypothetical instance. 100 voters. If they all give option D, say, a 1st preference, D will get the highest possible score, (100 x 5 =) 500. If, also, they give option A their 5th preference, A will get a final score of only (100 x 1 =) 100 points. And if, again, 100 voters give option B a 3rd preference, or if 50 voters give option E a 2nd preference and the other 50 voters give E a 4th preference, then both B and E will get a score of (100 x 3 =) 300 or (50 x 4 + 50 x 2 =) 300. In practice, life will probably be a little more varied. But basically, all five options will get a positive result; furthermore, something(s) will be above the mean, and something(s) else below. Consensus voting always gives an outcome. If the winner gets a very high score, between 450 and 500, then we may talk of near unanimity. If the winner gets 400-450, then that's a consensus. If it's 350-400, that's probably just a best possible compromise. And if it's anything less than 350, then obviously some or all of the other options are at about the same level, so maybe it's better to treat the vote as a straw poll and to resume the debate. Now there may be some voters who do not want to cast a full slate of five preferences. There might even be some who prefer to abstain. Democracy, however, is for everybody, so the mathematics of the voting system should actually encourage all concerned to participate to whatever extent they feel able. In consensus voting, then, the voter who casts m preferences gives his favourite just m points, (and his 2nd preference m-1 points, etc.). So he who casts only one preference gives his favourite just 1 point; She who casts two options gives her favourite 2 points (and her 2nd preference 1 point); He who casts three options gives his favourite 3 points (his 2nd preference 2 points, and his 3rd preference 1 point); but best of all, therefore, she who casts five preferences gives her favourite the maximum 5 points, (and her 2nd preference 4 points, and so on). The difference, then, is always 1 point. In theory, if everyone states not only their favourite option but also their compromise options, it will be possible to identify the collective compromise. This is the basis of the consensus vote, the technical name for which is the Modified Borda Count. We first used it in an exercise in Belfast in 1986: we got both sides to come together - politicians, paramilitaries, priests, police and the public, over 200 in all - and this was still 8 years before the ceasefire; we sat in concentric circles; we paused for silence; no one spoke for too long; all options were accepted, so everyone respected the right of others to have different aspirations; and then, at the end of the day, with 10 options on the table, we moved to a consensus vote, and thus we found a common consensus. Since then, the methodology has been used quite a few times, both here and abroad, in Bosnia for example, with electronic multi-preference voting; and so far anyway, it has always worked. Best regards, Peter Emerson Director, The de Borda Institute 36 Ballysillan Road Belfast BT14 7QQ 028 90 711795 078 377 17979 <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] <http://www.deborda.org> www.deborda.org The Borda count "is the best protection ever devised from the tyranny of the majority." Professor Sir Michael Dummett. * * ========================================================== [email protected] ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of [email protected]: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
