QuakerInfo.com Forum

[lkindr]

* I think the world needs Quaker-like decision making in all governments etc. It's likely the only way to end major abuse of power. Don't you think?
* I'm near Manchester, NH and I want to ask Friends in the area about how consensus could be adapted to politics and activism. But I'd like to contact Friends anywhere about that.
* When people get together to make group decisions, each person has concerns. And everyone's main concerns should be heard and everyone should attempt to find solutions that help meet each person's main concerns effectively, I think.
* I'm trying to develop a method to carry out such a process well. I think it will help if people try it out together.
* If anyone would like to try it here, would you like to start by expressing your main concerns? And, if you know of opposing concerns that others have on an issue, is there anything about the opposing concerns that you can understand? If so, can you think of a solution that would satisfy your concern and any opposing concerns?
* War is a concern of mine and I can discuss that later, if no one else wants to start discussing concerns. Taxes is another concern of mine. Abuse of power, of course, is my main concern of all. Government corruption is another.
* I have 2 Youtube channels where I hope to post videos about this. I call the process Win-Win, instead of consensus or unity.
_________________
Good Day!

[Kiahanie]

I believe the Green Party in California has been using consensus in their general assembly decision-making processes. You might check with some of the experienced folk there for some advice.
_________________
"There is a field out beyond right and wrong. I'll meet you there." --Jellaludin Rumi

[lkindr]

I'm having a win-win meeting today, which I hope to get some video of.
I hope to attend a Friends business meeting ere long too, to discuss such.
Anyone want to discuss win-win here?
_________________
Good Day!

[trueRiver]

[CelticNorth]

I hate to seem like an old Haggis ( which I am ), but isn't it wishful thinking to assume that a true concensus can be achieved in every situation ? Yes, the Green Party can do so because of its limited interest and focus. But I discern that once an issue leaves its home base and enters a diverse populaton, we end up where the Greeks knew long ago public issues eventually ended up- that is in legalized democratic institutions governed by majority rule. In my small home town, if you had to wait for a consensus for the township to do anything, you'd best count on casting your vote like it had been rumored they do in Chicago- from the grave.

[james]

I may be half with you on this, McGuffey, but with reservations. I agree that consensus decision making is impractical for government at a national scope, and mighty difficult with even small groups whose members aren't at least as committed to the process as they are to their own favored outcomes.

But majority rule is also not practical, and more importantly, not nearly good enough for nations that wish to be civil and just. Fortunately it is not what most successful liberal "democracies" practice. Direct voting on issues plays a rather small part in such countries, and in those few circumstances where it is practiced, it tends to work very poorly. The mess that is California state government owes a lot to over-dependence on public referenda.

Voting is important to maintain some kind of accountability and pressure valve for public frustration, but to my mind it ranks a distant second to constitutional concepts like like separation of powers, independent judiciary, and a strong bill of rights or equivalent to protect the rights of minorities. The principle of majority rule has its place, but is a deeply flawed concept that we Westerners have made into something of a fetish.
_________________
James Riemermann
www.nontheistfriends.org
www.liberalquakers.org

[lkindr]

* I regret that I haven't checked in here more often. My internet activities are too undisciplined still, but I hope to improve.

[woundwort]

I remember a certain Councilman T. Carcetti taking control of Quaker-style consensus meetings.

As for the Greens, in Britain (and, I gather, the US), at least, it's a politically and numerically insignificant party whose virtuous policies have been adopted by mainstream parties. In Britain, its sole MP was largely a construction of the BBC and received, even by first-past-the-post standards, a low proportion of the cast vote.

Thus it can afford to spend more time on "seeking consensus" than politiking. I don't know if it's still the case, but as of a couple of years ago, it even had male and female principal speakers.