Reimagining Democracy: Experimenting with Consensus Voting
Our democratic systems face growing challenges, from misinformation to polarized decision-making. To address these, we must explore innovative approaches, such as group deliberations and consensus-based voting. Inspired by jury systems, this model envisions citizens deliberating on key issues, prioritizing dialogue, and evidence-based reasoning. Implementation could occur along a spectrum, ranging from symbolic engagement to transformative experiments in governance.
---
The Vision: Consensus Voting
What if political decisions required near-unanimous agreement, just as juries do?
This approach would:
- Encourage citizens to debate and defend their positions.
- Promote rational, evidence-based decision-making over misinformation and intuition.
- Transform voting from a solitary act into a collaborative effort, fostering dialogue and mutual understanding.
Such a system could rebuild trust in democratic processes while addressing the divisive nature of modern politics.
The Spectrum of Implementation
1. Entertainment-Based Engagement: Reality TV for Policy
Concept: News networks or TV shows create engaging, policy-focused programs featuring diverse panels of citizens deliberating on issues.
Goal: Raise public awareness and demonstrate the value of informed debate.
Features: Panels mimic jury-like discussions, with participants arguing their positions based on evidence.
Example: A televised debate among 12 citizens representing different viewpoints, culminating in a consensus-based vote.
Impact: While primarily symbolic, this format could spark curiosity and elevate policy discourse.
2. Civic Democracy Labs: Controlled Experiments
Concept: Universities, NGOs, or think tanks establish "democracy labs" to experiment with new voting models.
Goal: Test various approaches outside government structures.
Features: Randomly assigned groups simulate decision-making on hypothetical or real issues. Systems like weighted voting, anonymous deliberation, and structured rebuttals are explored.
Impact: Generates data and insights on what fosters collaboration and rationality, informing potential reforms.
3. Localized Pilot Programs: Real-World Application
Concept: Local governments or communities adopt consensus voting for specific initiatives.
Goal: Evaluate its feasibility and impact on real decisions.
Features: Groups deliberate on issues like school budgets, zoning, or neighborhood priorities. Structured debates, moderated discussions, and anonymous voting ensure inclusivity and fairness.
Impact: Demonstrates practical benefits and scalability, creating a model for broader adoption.
A Framework for Implementation
Group Formation: Volunteers are randomly assigned to groups or organized by neighborhoods (e.g., 3–10 households sharing one vote). Random number generators or postal zones ensure diverse representation.
Deliberation Process: Participants debate issues via in-person meetings or anonymous phone/video conferences. Moderators or automated systems manage speaking times, prioritize underrepresented voices, and ensure civility.
Weighted Voting: Volunteers willing to engage in debate earn slightly more voting power (e.g., 1.1–1.2x), incentivizing civic participation.
Focus on Rationality: Misinformation, fake news, and anecdotal reasoning are systematically countered with validated data, education, and logical analysis.
Addressing Concerns
Critics may raise valid concerns about:
Conflict: Structured rules, trained moderators, and optional police presence can maintain order in debates.
Time Commitment: Flexible schedules and digital tools reduce barriers to participation.
Social Pressure: Anonymous systems foster honest participation and minimize fear of judgment.
These challenges, while real, are far less dangerous than the risks of uninformed, polarized decision-making.
Why This Matters
Our political decisions affect billions of lives and trillions of dollars. They deserve the same rigor as criminal jury decisions.
Encouraging deliberation and consensus-building forces participants to:
- Justify their beliefs with evidence.
- Engage with differing perspectives.
- Identify the best solutions through collaboration.
By fostering a culture of informed debate, consensus voting empowers communities and strengthens democracy.
The Path Forward
Key Areas for Experimentation:
1. Optimal group sizes for deliberation.
2. Reasonable time limits for reaching consensus.
3. Issues best suited for this approach, such as contentious policies or unaddressed local concerns.
Small Experiments, Big Impact: Start with limited-scope trials in local communities or simulated labs. Learn from these experiences and refine the process for broader application.
A New Era for Democracy
Whether through televised debates, controlled experiments, or localized pilots, consensus voting has the potential to transform how we make decisions.
It builds dialogue, fosters understanding, and prioritizes evidence over rhetoric. In a time when polarization threatens our shared future, this approach offers a path to unity and reason.
Let’s take this first step. Our democracy depends on it.-- myclob, Mar 10 2005 Personal Government http://www.ornery.o...h/2005-02-13-1.htmlThis article explains why my idea is a good one [myclob, Apr 01 2005] erm.. who selects the jury ? is it "Every 12 people should get 1 vote"
or "Every 5 people should get 1 vote" ?-- neilp, Mar 10 2005 //people rarely have to make an argument for their position//Why is that a problem? Why should I have to justify my opinion?-- angel, Mar 10 2005 I can honestly say that at this time I don't get it?-- skinflaps, Mar 10 2005 Yes, that's why there is a chat room, to talk about the current climatic conditions - the Brits'll love it.Or maybe there'll be a chatroom to talk about castrated rams. This is in the HB [general] category - is it a proposal to change the HB's voting scheme?-- AbsintheWithoutLeave, Mar 10 2005 Wasn't that the problem in the last 2 USA elections - that 50 percent of people thought one way, and 50 percent of people thought exactly the opposite. So, how would this system help situations where the population is basically evenly divided?-- submitinkmonkey, Mar 10 2005 That means that 5 people voted for, but 30 voted against. Hmmmmm....-- DesertFox, Mar 10 2005 monkey, probably because 75 percent of either side didn't do much thinking at all. This might force them to. Completely unworkable though as nothing would get done. --- RayfordSteele, Mar 10 2005 I'm new at this and got some people mad for deleting their annotations. Do you mind if I delete the one's about spelling and the use of the word weather? I was in a hurry, am a terrible speller, not as fast as the rest of the kids, and these items combined to result in the perfect storm that was my post. However, I think I have fixed spelling errors.
Re: "Completely unworkable, though, as nothing would get done."
We had millions of individuals vote in the last election in America. In 2001 India had 1,027,015,247 persons. If you made groups of 3 and they only half of the came to a consensus, then that would still be 171,169,208 votes. Enough votes to determine what the will of the people is.
re: "We should not question the secrete ballot and one person one vote because they are sacred, and their benefits are self-evident."
We can question Dogma if we are careful, do small experiments, and follow the data. We have achieved a lot of human progress by carefully questioning Dogma. It is better to have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.
Rewarding debate doesn't have to harm the secretive nature of someone's vote. We can have anonymous debates on the telephone.
A transparent voting system with people only voting for things they were willing to admit to their family and neighbors doesn't sound so bad.-- myclob, Mar 12 2005 [DrBob] The Simpsons did that too - Homer disagreed with the rest of the jury so he could get to stay in a hotel.-- hippo, Mar 14 2005 I like this. It is of course totally unworkable, but it's actually a good idea at heart addressing some of the fundamental problems of democracy. Putting a vote into a box every four years isn't enough to make a democracy work, people need to consider carefully why they are voting the way they are and be able to back that up with some sort of reasoning. That won't happen unless you engage people in some sort of political debate.
Right now we (US/UK/most of Europe) do politics from the top down. The parties disseminate their policies via the media, and the electorate mostly lets the media do the thinking and debate for them - to a large extent our voting decisions are made for us by the media. Forcing us into political debate (especially with those of other persuasions) would shift some power away from the media and back to the electorate.
Of course most people wouldn't bother, they'd just cede their 1/12th of a vote and hope that everything would be ok. All the same I'm going to bun you because I like the approach and no one else seems to get it. [+]-- wagster, Mar 14 2005 [hippo] Malcolm in the Middle did that too - Malcolm's mother disagreed with the rest of the jury so they would take the time to think through the case.-- FarmerJohn, Mar 14 2005 Re: "Twelve Angry Men was also parodied by Tony Hancock and Sid James in a way which tells you exactly why this idea will not work."
I don't get it. You go to a fictional story to say that juries don't work, when they seem to work in real life all the time.
Sure, maybe juries shouldn't be used to vote for our elected officials, but don't say that juries never work.
We already live in a political system often described as “winner takes all”. It doesn’t matter that Ross Perot had thousands of people vote for him, unless he gets a majority of the votes, he is not going to win even a proportional amount of power.-- myclob, Mar 14 2005 //I’ll assume you don’t have anything of substance to contribute // I shan't waste my time on you then.-- DrBob, Mar 16 2005 Good film, great play, bad idea. [-]-- etherman, Mar 16 2005 //...to say that juries don't work, when they seem to work in real life all the time. //I can surmise from this statement that you are neither a member of the legal profession nor David Jacobs.-- calum, Mar 16 2005 Re: "I can surmise from this statement that you are neither a member of the legal profession nor David Jacobs."
I'm not sure who David Jacobs it. Google gives me a book, and a singer.
So members of the legal profession do not have faith in jury systems?-- myclob, Mar 16 2005 I'm puzzled by the reference to David Jacobs too. The one I know is/was a BBC Radio 2 "DJ", and a Michael Howard sound/lookalike. The fact that Michael Howard was a former UK Home Secretary may be relevant. Dunno - care to elucidate [calum]?-- TolpuddleSartre, Mar 16 2005 I thought about adding the word "legal" to the search.Among the immediate answers I found this (linky). I think it looks like I have found the relevant Mr. Jacobs.-- Jinbish, Mar 16 2005 [Jinbish] - Thankyou very much for your link to Dr Batty's research on the way herring communicate by farting from their swim bladders. It left me none the wiser about David Jacobs but thoroughly amused.-- wagster, Mar 16 2005 DrBob, eh? he kept that research quiet. didn't know his last name was Batty.-- po, Mar 16 2005 It's not a name [po], it's a description. Dr Bob - batty.-- wagster, Mar 16 2005 I truly had to check the date when I read that article - dragging herrings into it just made it seem more like April 1st.-- po, Mar 16 2005 <hand up> Ok, I made an arse of cutting and pasting a link and didn't even have the wherewithall to bother checking.</hand down>Quite clearly, if I want something done properly -I'd better get someone with at least some vague semblence competence... I don't even know if that's the guy in question.-- Jinbish, Mar 16 2005 I posted a link to an article by Orson Scott Card where he argues for local government. I thought some of his points apply to my idea. I like the thought of a towns citizens having to argue out their decision, instead of just going into a dark private place, and voting for people with D's or R's by their name.-- myclob, Apr 01 2005 Orson Scott Card.. writes pretty good books, too.
I just love the idea of writing someone's name on the ballot paper, and getting him into office.
As for the idea: don't see the point. And [myclob], I hate to be a Whinging Morris, but can we get rid of the 'reasons to agree' thing? It just gets my back up for some reason. How about 'on the one hand', or 'Advantages of this idea' or something? I may have reasons why I think this is a good idea which have nothing to do with yours, and I feel bad about bunning an idea for reasons which may be subversive or counter-revolutionary or something.
My God. It's Friday night and I'm sitting in front of a computer, typing rubbish.-- moomintroll, Apr 01 2005 //My God. It's Friday night and I'm sitting in front of a computer, typing rubbish.// Hey, that's reason #7 in the list of ways to tell if you're a halfbaker.-- Worldgineer, Apr 01 2005 I'm reassured. Still, might change my name - 'moom' has a nice palyndromic feel to it...-- moomintroll, Apr 01 2005 Your real name or your 'baker name? If the latter, send an e-mail to bakesperson (click the "report a problem" link) - she might help you out. If the former, then perhaps it's time to turn the computer off for a while.-- Worldgineer, Apr 01 2005 Yes, the username can be changed and all posts will be changed to reflect that. "chown"-- bristolz, Apr 01 2005 chown?-- Worldgineer, Apr 01 2005 change owner-- bristolz, Apr 01 2005 Ah. My unix/linux days were few and long ago.-- Worldgineer, Apr 01 2005 If I'm doing something wrong, then I can delete my "copy paste", but I thought if I gave his name, and said, "Copyright" that it was OK.-- myclob, Apr 01 2005 Thx, [myclob]! I appreciate it.-- bristolz, Apr 02 2005 Good idea, but the problem with this is that it would favour large parties over small ones. This would almost certainly lead to a two-party system. Also, smaller emerging parties would find it impossible to get their foot into the door. The ruling parties would become complacent as they have nothing to fear.-- kinemojo, Mar 17 2006 I like this, on grounds of 'trying to make people listen/think', so [+], even though it will never happen.-- pertinax, May 24 2006 bun-- Voice, Aug 17 2006 random, halfbakery