Democracy or Consensus?

[rue_d_etropal]

Linked to my other post, but something I am getting more concerned about.
It is not news that general public in UK are geting fed up with politics and politicians. The whole concept of democracy is going wrong. A bit ironic concidering what is happening in the birthplace of politics , namely Greece, at the moment.
Sport is not smelling of roses, either(again strange the Greek connection -Olympics), but Ghandi did say that competition leeds to corruption.
I seem to remember visiting one co-op last year, where they tried to use consensus to sort out problems where not everyone agreed on an issue, and I wonder if this is not a better way than simply taking a vote. The process would be a lot more complex and probably take longer, but less likely to get fallout .
With a democracy, decisions are often decided by a vote, which means one side wins, and one side loses. The winning side are happy, the losing side are not, and cracks will start to appear .
Alternatively, if no vote is taken, and disagreements are talked through, with both sides compromising,then neither side gets everything, but neither side gets nothing.
Trouble is we have built up our systems based on democracy model, and they are probably too big to convert, unless we work to move political control down to a smaller local area.
Probably a pipe dream, but circumstances might overtake us, and the political systems will not fit the new community structures. In smaller groups it will be more important to keep people onboard, and making some winnerre and some losers will just break up the party. We will all have to learn how to compromise, and work together.
I perceive the biggest problem is that some people are greedy, some are over competitive(possibly both), and they are not interested in what others think. They just want to win at all costs.

[lurker]

With no vote it would be just the group that shouts the loudest that gets there way & decodes on the consensus.

[JohnB]

With no vote it would be just the group that shouts the loudest that gets there way & decodes on the consensus.

That's why a good facilitator is needed, so everyone gets their say.

[lurker]

A vote has no bias a facilitator does

[GlynG]

I think democracy is incredibly over-rated and was a bad idea from the start - Plato was scathing and critical of democracy and I think he had a point.

[kenneal - lagger]

The Findhorn community, I think, runs on a consensus basis, after much meditation.

[ziggy12345]

I'd prefer a benevolent dictatorship

[biffvernon]

Surely the trick is to reduce the amount that needs to be dictated, arrived at by consensus or by voting. We need a society which enables individual freedom and responsibility, where people are, as far as is possible, not subject to the decisions of others.

Basically, none of us like being told what to do. So the greatest satisfaction will come from creating a world where we do not need to be told what to do.

[adam2]

IME consenus only works for relatively small groups or comunities where most members already have something in common and know each other.
Formal democracy does not work very well for small groups because if there is general support for an idea, everyone knows that this is the case and a formal vote is a waste of effort.
If views are more evenly divided, then a formal vote carries a significant risk of a tie, 6 votes for and 6 votes against. It is common in such cases for the chairman to have a casting vote.

In the case of a much larger community, such as a parliamentary constituency, then democratic voting works fairly well.
If say 10,000 vote then the chance of a tie is minute, though I believe that it has happened.
Consensus is most unlikely to be reached in a large community were most members dont know each other.
I cant see much consensus being reached on say the scale of social security benifits. Those receiving, or hoping to receive such benifits would naturaly vote for more money. Those paying for it via higher taxes would be likely to vote against any increase, and would probably support reductions.

A big drawback of democracy is that people can vote for the unachievable, for example lower taxes AND greater handouts.
Or for cheaper petrol, and less congested roads, or cheaper rail fares and an end to subsidies to the rail industry.

[featherstick]

I'd prefer a benevolent dictatorship

I used to think so too, when I was about 13 years old. The trouble with a dictatorship is that the dictator can't possibly know everything, so the real power devolves to those who control access to him/her, and they might not be so benevolent.

[emordnilap]

Surely the trick is to reduce the amount that needs to be dictated, arrived at by consensus or by voting. We need a society which enables individual freedom and responsibility, where people are, as far as is possible, not subject to the decisions of others.

Basically, none of us like being told what to do. So the greatest satisfaction will come from creating a world where we do not need to be told what to do.

I agree. The word 'responsibility' is always the stumbling block; role models for society shirk responsibility at every opportunity.

I would like a society where rights, responsibilities and limits are clearly defined, as opposed to the current set up of grab all and make sure you don't get caught and, when you do, become a hero.

I suppose equality is the greatest element that's lacking. It could be that most political systems could work if equality was a recognised right.

[DominicJ]

Surely the trick is to reduce the amount that needs to be dictated, arrived at by consensus or by voting. We need a society which enables individual freedom and responsibility, where people are, as far as is possible, not subject to the decisions of others.

Basically, none of us like being told what to do. So the greatest satisfaction will come from creating a world where we do not need to be told what to do.

oh gods where to begin....

[madibe]

Taking steps into the world of fiction for the moment...

Take control out of the hands of humans.

And no, I am not suggesting the divine, supernatural or blind faith.

Computerise the whole process

Now before everybody gets their flame guns out and starts imagining the science fiction 'evil computer' launching ICBMs on a whim or stomping on 'inferior weaker humanity', please consider that I am not suggesting here some 'super intelligence' that goes willy-nilly doing its thing and getting its rocks off on world domination. After all, there is always the off switch

No, merely suggesting that they be used as number crunchers to calculate best possible outcomes from a variety of inputs and criteria. But much more 'intelligently' than currently.

If modelling something as chaotic as weather patterns is possible (and this is an area of amazing development), financial markets, statistics etc etc., then with the right programming, data and input, national governance should be a doddle.

After all, most of the bollocks that is created by government is because the numbers don't add up, despite much creative accounting.

OK, fantasy time over

Ooooh - found this link:

http://dieoff.org/page163.htm

[MrG]

IME consenus only works for relatively small groups or comunities where most members already have something in common and know each other.
Formal democracy does not work very well for small groups because if there is general support for an idea, everyone knows that this is the case and a formal vote is a waste of effort.

+1 hit the nail on the head. It's a question of scale. consensus makes total sense on a small scale. It's what we naturally use (hopefully!) in small groups. Democracy with PR would just be consensus working in a larger system. I guess??

Lots of systems work on smaller scales. Communism works on a small scale. It had big issues when roled out on a large scale.

You could argue I think that capatalism worked on the scale of nation state but that it started to create real problems when we tried to roll it out on a global scale.

Or rather when it started to roll itself out on a global scale.

[Ludwig]

I perceive the biggest problem is that some people are greedy, some are over competitive(possibly both), and they are not interested in what others think. They just want to win at all costs.

Not just some - I'd say most these days. The legacy of the Thatcher years was the message "It's not just OK to be selfish, it's RIGHT to be selfish". Well, we shall see how well that ethos serves us, shan't we?

Like Postie, I'll be in the queue to dance on Thatcher's grave. I read a quote by someone close to her who said she'd "not had a single happy day" since she was toppled. Small consolation for her ruining the country, but some consolation nonetheless.