On the extreme end, Quakers. Consensus is clearly a democratic voting scheme, and they’ve run everything from churches to universities to states to companies with it.
Consensus is quite hard to corrupt by design. You trade off some substantial amount of efficiency, and most groups aren’t willing to commit to working towards it.
They believe everyone’s got some good in them, and that good will end up getting the important decisions to happen. I note that they don’t seem to actually control for this belief all that hard. Perhaps anyone who doesn’t believe gets too impatient and moves on.
Eh - sounds like arguments against centralization of power to me.
Show me a Democratic model practiced on a large scale that has not descended into an oligarchy of corruption.
On the extreme end, Quakers. Consensus is clearly a democratic voting scheme, and they’ve run everything from churches to universities to states to companies with it.
Why do you think it is so effective for them?
Consensus is quite hard to corrupt by design. You trade off some substantial amount of efficiency, and most groups aren’t willing to commit to working towards it.
They believe everyone’s got some good in them, and that good will end up getting the important decisions to happen. I note that they don’t seem to actually control for this belief all that hard. Perhaps anyone who doesn’t believe gets too impatient and moves on.
Yes, I looked it up. A non adversarial voting system based around consensus. This is similar to a system I strive for in my workplace.
Thanks for pointing this out, while extreme it does offer some good insight especially for someone who is over the first past the post system like me.