Unparty promotes deliberation at the local level towards some policy conclusions. Consensus would be the goal. But you might think: surely there are just so many divisive issues? Is consensus really possible? Well, yes and no. First off, there is nothing wrong with having the vote as a fall-back position. But I’ll go through a hypothetical scenario.
Hypothetical Scenario
There is a proposal. It could be something like: marijuana should be legalized. Pretty controversial. Some people object. So there will be the chance to talk through it. There may even be break-out groups: smaller groups that report back to the bigger group. This has the benefit of putting people on different sides of the argument into discussion with each other. And it gets ideas flowing. Perhaps someone is dead against pot; they think it destroys people’s lives. But then they meet someone: successful, has a career, lights up once in a while to kick back. Or someone who uses it to relieve pain. Some trust is built up. The original proposal can be amended. OK, pot should be legalized but under certain conditions. More and more people come on board.
So what do you do with those who still will not accept it? They fundamentally disagree. Well, then it is actually possible to have a vote! The vote can be the last resort. The group would have to agree right at the start what the threshold is: 65%, 75%, 90%. Etc. The vote settles it. Either the proposal, with the amendments, wins. Or it does not.
The point here is that with all this process, the “losers” are less disgruntled. They genuinely see that their voice was heard and considered by the group, but they still lost out. Compare this to an “efficient” system. The proposal is made. There’s little deliberation and then a vote. Majority wins. You have a result but a divided group. Proponents of consensus these days make the statement that “unity is not unanimity“. Some examples and further points:
Successful Open Source Software (often freeware) projects. The experienced members bend over backwards to avoid a vote. The vote results in a) a divided group, b) a premature termination of dialogue. Sometimes extended deliberation produces ideas that are truly innovative.
If you google “Dialogue with the City + Perth” you will find an example where that city took 1100 people and purposely put them in 110 tables of 10 each. The goal was to design the city. As they deliberated, their views were transmitted to a “theme team” who organized the opinions and broadcast them back to the whole room in real time. They succeeded with something like 97% saying they would participate in such an event again. Their deliberative group was formed quasi-randomly. And that is always an option. We pick some people randomly from our community and let them deliberate. This “mini-public” would embody all the traits and views of the whole community in approximate equal proportions.
Further Ideas
Even the vote does not have to be divisive. For example, the Apache software project uses range voting and approval voting together. (You were probably using Apache when you came to this website since it basically makes the internet possible.) There are many options on the ballot, and participants give a number, a rating, to each of them. This helps avoid us-vs-them. Sometimes a “second best” item “wins” the vote.
There are lots of other methods now for group decision making. It doesn’t have to be the method as given above. You might read about dotmocracy, Open Space Technology, Legislative Theater, Sociocracy, or Holocracy.
No matter what techniques of deliberation and consensus-seeking are used, experienced facilitators will be needed.
Our current political system creates cleavages in society. Black and white issues. Pick one side. Be hostile to those who pick the other. We’ll never know what is possible until we try something different.
