It would seem to me a given that we wouldn't be in favour of voting in elections as we obviously don't want to elect anybody, but what do you guys think of voting as part of a decision making process?
Until recently I was a member of a group who's policy was to only make decisions by concensus. The result of this was that every issue/point of policy was exhaustively examined. It was never a case of shall we/shan't we. On the rare occasion that every member wasn't in agreement the member/members with a different view would 'surrender' to the wisdom of the group. If they didn't we would simply leave the current policy in place or not embark on a new activity or whatever, but would return to it at a later date and repeat the process. We had a great deal of success in our endevours using this model and a sense of equality pervaded the group.
So, all good there then except for one thing - there were only 10-12 of us!
Now, I feel opposed to the idea of voting on the simple principle of 8 people telling 2 people what to do does not equal freedom, but how are decisions made when hundreds or even thousands are involved as would obviously be the case in the event of a revolution?
I have no answers myself despite having thought about this for a long time.
Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.
Jan 29 2013 14:07
Jan 29 2013 16:36
Quote:
theres no reason why we can't have a discussion and try to reach agreement, and then vote, while setting the ratio of yes/no required for approval to something other than 50%+1
Where does the line get drawn though? Even if it's 90/10 there is still 10% of people not getting their choice. That still seems wrong to me. If the UK discussed the abolition of the state for a year you would still get less than a 10% vote in favour of the motion. Still a wrong decision though leaving almost everyone in slavery including those that voted for abolition.
It just doesn't cut it.
Jan 29 2013 17:22
Jan 29 2013 17:46
Thanks Greenjuice
Just had a quick scan through these - they look useful and interesting. A bit too extensive for a full read tonight though. One for the weekend methinks.
Jan 29 2013 17:48
Do you know whats really undemocratic and opposed to freedom <50 % of people being able to block a decision made by > 50 % of people non action is still a decision innit.
Jan 29 2013 18:08
Quote:
Do you know whats really undemocratic and opposed to freedom <50 % of people being able to block a decision made by > 50 % of people non action is still a decision innit.
Very true, but surely that's not the only choice? And no decision is better than a wrong decision.
Also, it would depend on the nature of the issue at hand. If, for instance, 60% of those involved voted to build a hospital with available resources and 40% wanted to build a timber mill you have a situation with long term consequences - treating sick people vs providing housing maybe. It would be arrogant of the 60% to be certain enough that they are correct with something that could have such far reaching consequences for an entire community.
Maybe the resources could be divided but of course that may result in poor performance of both the hospital and the mill.
To me this is important stuff but there must be answers. It cannot be beyond the wit of humanity to come up with a better option than the above quote and my response - sadly, it is beyond the wit of Webby at this point in time.
I suspect Greenjuice's links will shed some light.
Jan 29 2013 18:36
Concerning the majority question I think we should always take in consideration an important principle (IMO the most important principle to think about in general) - that decision making should involve everyone conserned in the degree in which the decision made affects them. So for decision that are not crucial a simple majority would do, for some things a minorty should decide if that minority is the most affected by the decision made, and it really depends on the question that is being decided upon, no sigle mould for decision making can be given for deciding about all question.
Jan 29 2013 20:16
Webby wrote:
Where does the line get drawn though? Even if it's 90/10 there is still 10% of people not getting their choice.
In actual practice, I don't believe consensus produces any better results on average. However, the 10% leave the organization, stifle themselves or announce a 'surrender'.
What is the issue with taking a majority vote and going by that decision?
Jan 29 2013 21:09
I think I've already posted what the issue is. Maybe it's not an issue to others?
As much as anything I'm trying to root out some alternatives by examining the defects of voting.
I think the path laid out in Greenjuice's last post is the one to take a wander up.
Jan 30 2013 01:04
To be fair Webby, you haven't really posted your issues about it. You've only offered two vague statements regarding voting "not cutting it", and how 2 people don't have freedom cause they were voted down in their 1o person group.
And yea, I like that principle as described by Greenjuice. Good way to conduct your voting.
Jan 30 2013 08:27
Quote:
And yea, I like that principle as described by Greenjuice. Good way to conduct your voting.
It's a good principle even in ethics. I first saw it in a response to capitalist "objection" to [direct] democracy that it would validate gang rape- a bunch of people voting whether or not to rape one person, but the principle of participism (as I saw later that participism holds it as central) is actually the essense of democracy, not mathematics of votes, but interests of people.
Jan 30 2013 09:37
Someone said a while ago back on a thread that we need far more written about an anarchist conceptions of federalism and far less about consensus. I agree wholeheartedly.
FWIW, I think it's worth looking at actually functioning anarchist organisations. In SF, for example, we have a process that's basically discussion--> motion--> discussion--> amendments--> discussion--> votes. In my experience, in the majority of cases the local can achieve a consensus before the motion is presented; and in 90% of cases by the amendment phase.
On an national and international level, we have the same procedure except it's locals/national organisations who present motions and amendments (deciding on wording on how to vote using the process described above). In those situations as well, we have a policy of super-majorities as a further democratic safeguard.
Of course, this means you lose a vote sometimes--that's inevitable. But even if you're on the losing side in a vote, you've def had the opportunity to voice your concerns and opinions and/or voice your opposition. And, even if you're on the losing side in one vote, it's more than likely that you'll probably be on the winning side in another vote. So losing a vote doesn't feel like this oppressive thing.
Hope that's helpful.
Also, I really like GJ's ideas about participism.
Jan 30 2013 11:59
Consensus decision making in my experience totally sucks. Usually the consensus is just one persons opinion thats had the endurance to go the distance to keep asserting the opinion and others just go along with it essentially. meh!
Jan 30 2013 18:20
Quote:
To be fair Webby, you haven't really posted your issues about it. You've only offered two vague statements regarding voting "not cutting it", and how 2 people don't have freedom cause they were voted down in their 1o person group.
Fair comment, but that's about as strong a handle as I have on this. Vague, for sure, but still something that both bothers and interests me. I've only been visiting Libcom for a couple of months after 30 years of thinking myself an anarchist but never progressing beyond the basic belief that the world is in bad shape, there has to be a better way and that the better way could not involve state, goverment etc. You'll have to cut me a little slack as I'm a small child in terms of development and understanding on the subject of practical anarchism.
Quote:
Consensus decision making in my experience totally sucks. Usually the consensus is just one persons opinion thats had the endurance to go the distance to keep asserting the opinion and others just go along with it essentially. meh!
Not my experience at all. I guess that a pre-requisite would be that those involved would be truly commited to the common good rather than driven by the desire to win or exercise control or just run their mouth. Relatively easy in a small single issue set up as described in my original post but probably a different matter on a larger scale or in a situation where people are seperated by deeply entrenched fixed ideas.
Jan 30 2013 18:36
If 12 people sit down to vote on a collective decision, then why would those out-voted not respect a well discussed majority decision? If you enter into a group vote on group decision, what right has anyone after the event to claim that majority voting has restricted their freedom? With all decisions, these are usually works-in-progress, and no book is forever closed.
Jan 30 2013 21:54
plasmatelly wrote:
If 12 people sit down to vote on a collective decision, then why would those out-voted not respect a well discussed majority decision? If you enter into a group vote on group decision, what right has anyone after the event to claim that majority voting has restricted their freedom? With all decisions, these are usually works-in-progress, and no book is forever closed.
This. Freedom does not mean getting what you want all the time.
Jan 30 2013 22:48
Quote:
If 12 people sit down to vote on a collective decision, then why would those out-voted not respect a well discussed majority decision? If you enter into a group vote on group decision, what right has anyone after the event to claim that majority voting has restricted their freedom? With all decisions, these are usually works-in-progress, and no book is forever closed.
Well, for this reason perhaps?
Quote:
If the UK discussed the abolition of the state for a year you would still get less than a 10% vote in favour of the motion. Still a wrong decision though leaving almost everyone in slavery including those that voted for abolition.
Maybe not a great example but it makes my point.
My original post actually says that I don't believe concensus will work in most instances but that I have reservations about voting as an alternative. I'm not obstinately trying to be anti voting - I'm trying to be convinced that voting is a very good method. I have experience of voting being a terrible way to make decisions and I have experince of concensus being a truly excellent way to make decisions, albeit, in just one very specific, single issue group application but over the coarse of my 10 year membership of that group. Now I am attempting to open my mind on an option that it has been closed to for a very long time. That's all.
Quote:
Freedom does not mean getting what you want all the time.
Agreed. But it does mean getting what you need all the time. Really that's my point - can voting be a good way for a community to make a correct decision to meet its needs. From the replies on this thread so far the general concensus(sorry, I couldn't resist!) seems to be YES.
Thanks for your input.
Jan 31 2013 10:02
Webby, what single-issue group were you in, if you don't mind me asking publicly?
Jan 31 2013 10:29
Narcotics Anonymous - so not a political group. Internaly it became quite 'political' though.
Fed up with a 'service' structure that didn't serve but directed instead and a 'non profit' service office that sold our Basic Text to rehabs cheaper than it sold it to NA groups, we started printing our own Basic Text books which we were able to give away in large numbers. In fact we managed to get a copy in every library in Essex and Suffolk(till we were discredited by the service office who claimed copyright), as well as in prisons, homelessness organisations etc.
The service structure/office went out of their way to discredit us, even to the extent of circulating stories of us 'kidnapping' addicts and forcing them to dispose of their medication!
Those that did find their way to us were given the advice and care that they needed and many lives were transformed as a result.
All of our decisions were made through 'group conscience' which we approached with a consensus model. The process was, at times, quite frustrating, but was mostly very easy and sometimes absolutely incredible. Very often the decision taken was one that not a single person had come to the table with indicating that the group had become an entity almost seperate from the individuals involved. Whole greater than the sum of its parts and all that.
Jan 31 2013 10:40
Narcotics Anonymous - so not a political group. Internaly it became quite 'political' though.
Fed up with a 'service' structure that didn't serve but directed instead and a 'non profit' service office that sold our Basic Text to rehabs cheaper than it sold it to NA groups, we started printing our own Basic Text books which we were able to give away in large numbers. In fact we managed to get a copy in every library in Essex and Suffolk(till we were discredited by the service office who claimed copyright), as well as in prisons, homelessness organisations etc.
The service structure/office went out of their way to discredit us, even to the extent of circulating stories of us 'kidnapping' addicts and forcing them to dispose of their medication!
Those that did find their way to us were given the advice and care that they needed and many lives were transformed as a result.
All of our decisions were made through 'group conscience' which we approached with a consensus model. The process was, at times, quite frustrating, but was mostly very easy and sometimes absolutely incredible. Very often the decision taken was one that not a single person had come to the table with indicating that the group had become an entity almost seperate from the individuals involved. Whole greater than the sum of its parts and all that.
Jan 31 2013 12:07
Wow. That is not what I expected you to say--I was thinking more some local anti-war or maybe housing group. But it's far more interesting. I know you're busy, but I think it'd be great if you did a longer write-up about that. I'd read it and I think it'd be well-rec'd here on libcom as well.
Jan 31 2013 12:41
Quote:
Wow. That is not what I expected you to say--I was thinking more some local anti-war or maybe housing group. But it's far more interesting. I know you're busy, but I think it'd be great if you did a longer write-up about that. I'd read it and I think it'd be well-rec'd here on libcom as well.
Funny that you thought it would be an anti-war protest - the first action that I ever instigated was a protest at our local war memorial on Rememberence Sunday. About a dozen of us aged between 15 and 17 collaborated on writing a pamphlet which we gave out after the service. I'd been on CND and save the bloody whale marches before and it felt so futile and full of the chattering classes making a fashion statement - the cynic in me was awakened!
Doing something that we organised, in our own community seemed so important, so vital. We even made the front page of the local paper! Seems a bit silly now but it was great at the time.
Yes, I could do a more detailed write up of my experiences, I'd just have to figure out the best way to go about it. It was a very big deal to me - I dedicated between 3 and 7 nights a week to it for over a decade, regularly drove up to 500 miles a week to attend, so there is quite a lot to think about. I did leave eventually, but that's another story! I suppose that for a piece on Libcom the nature of addiction and recovery would not be so relevant. The reclaiming of what was truly ours and the methods that the 'authorities' employed to prevent that would be far more relevent. I'll definitely do it but maybe not for a while.
Jan 31 2013 21:22
Quote:
I did leave eventually, but that's another story! I suppose that for a piece on Libcom the nature of addiction and recovery would not be so relevant. The reclaiming of what was truly ours and the methods that the 'authorities' employed to prevent that would be far more relevent. I'll definitely do it but maybe not for a while.
To be honest, I think a critique of the mainstream methods of addiction treatment--especially from a libertarian perspective--would be awesome. I know Chaz Bufe wrote this, are you familiar?
Feb 1 2013 20:02
Not to distract from this
Chilli Sauce wrote:
To be honest, I think a critique of the mainstream methods of addiction treatment--especially from a libertarian perspective--would be awesome.
as I think it sounds like a great idea.
But I wanted to comment on what greenjuice said here.
greenjuice wrote:
Concerning the majority question I think we should always take in consideration an important principle (IMO the most important principle to think about in general) - that decision making should involve everyone conserned in the degree in which the decision made affects them. So for decision that are not crucial a simple majority would do, for some things a minorty should decide if that minority is the most affected by the decision made, and it really depends on the question that is being decided upon, no sigle mould for decision making can be given for deciding about all question.
It seems to me that by establishing who is most affected you already bias a decision, in the sense that by deciding who should make the decision you've almost already decided the outcome.
There often seem to be decisions where most people consider a certain option to be the obvious choice, but there's a particular oppressed minority who would be disproportionately negatively impacted by that option. However, that minority's preferred option is a mild inconvenience to the majority. In this case everyone feels entitled to a vote, and the same minority group is always disadvantaged by voting.
I can see how consensus attempts to solve this issue by giving people the right to block, but it gives that right to everyone and whether someone thinks their reasons to block are important can have as much to do with an overinflated sense of the importance of their own views in general as to do with anything else.* I wouldn't say consensus had anything to do with "getting what you want all the time" though. When I've been in groups that have used consensus I've not got what I want out of most decisions but have thought "Could I possibly tolerate this outcome? Yes. And at least if one day everyone is either too selfish or too oblivious to realise how their preferred option is going to massively fuck me over, then I can block." which was comforting in a way but in practice I've been very irritated by people not showing the same kind of restraint. Consensus as I've seen it used seems to have no systems in place for guiding the process towards an outcome that does what greenjuice suggests, even though it at least attempts to provide that option.
Voting could provide that by weighting some votes in relation to others, but as with the decision on who gets to block and why, by the time you've made the case for why you should get to have more of a say than other people, and convinced whoever makes this decision to weight your vote, you might as well have convinced them to vote the way you want them to because they know what the outcome is going to be anyway.
It's no surprise to me that groups who are more concerned with "identity politics" tend to favour consensus, and that groups with where people who are, for want of a better word, "normative" are over represented, tend to favour voting. Depending on who you are, your life experiences, and the extent to which you're marginalised by society, etc, making decisions by going with the option that looks best to the majority of people can seem anywhere between totally legit, to a genuinely terrifying prospect.
Like Webby, I've spent some time thinking about this and am not satisfied with the options presented so far. Deciding the process on a case by case basis, like greenjuice suggests, seems to make some sense, but I'd like to see a formal structure for deciding on the process. As more often than not it seems that collectively making the decision on how to make a decision has taken longer than making the actual decision, because everyone has a sense of which process will most likely result in the outcome they want, and we all end up clawing our eyes out in frustration before we've even started discussing the issue.
*That's apart from all the other problems with the consensus model, the tedium, the fact that the default is for things to stay as they are, etc.
Feb 1 2013 21:50
Webby wrote:
Narcotics Anonymous - so not a political group. Internaly it became quite 'political' though.
Fed up with a 'service' structure that didn't serve but directed instead and a 'non profit' service office that sold our Basic Text to rehabs cheaper than it sold it to NA groups, we started printing our own Basic Text books which we were able to give away in large numbers. In fact we managed to get a copy in every library in Essex and Suffolk(till we were discredited by the service office who claimed copyright), as well as in prisons, homelessness organisations etc.
The service structure/office went out of their way to discredit us, even to the extent of circulating stories of us 'kidnapping' addicts and forcing them to dispose of their medication!
Those that did find their way to us were given the advice and care that they needed and many lives were transformed as a result.
.
Sadly that doesn't surprise me - i've never worked in that sphere, but having worked in the third sector in regards to community development and youth work, i can see that when it comes between a conflict between the genuine improvement of the 'service users' or of the organisation (and sadly development workers in said organisations) facilitating such a process, its the organisation that will win invariably.
anyway sounds shit hot what youse have got going there 
As for the 'not for profit' nature of organisations the very way they go about sustaining themselves very much resembles the classic M-C-M process of accumulation as described in Capital Volume 1 chapter 7. Namely, funding pays for a piece of work often employing non-paid workers on the ground, then the piece of work gets 'evaluated', from which the evaluation gets used as value added to the organisation to justify greater funding applications and on the process continues....
Feb 1 2013 22:07
There is another aspect of this that has come to mind, and that is where a decision needs to be made that affects a number of branches of the same group or, as could be the case in a communist society, a number of different communities.
In a group or small community setting it is feasible that a thorough discussion could be held followed by a concensus or voted decision as regarding the preference of that group or community. Thereafter, to facilitate a final decision for all of the groups or communities, a representative would attend a regional meeting to put forward the preference made by the people that he or she represents. Now we have a real problem - various options are put forward but there is no opportunity for the vast majority of people that will be affected by the decision to be involved in further discussions. It seems to me that the equality and creativity (hopefully)utilised in the group/community decision is no longer available and a creative dead end is arrived at. I don't think that consensus can work at this stage as the representative only really has the authority to put forward one preference so the opportunity to come up with new or further developed ideas is no longer there. I suppose the rep could be given permission to engage in further creative discussions etc and then vote for a different or altered option but then the democracy has been removed as the voice of the group/community is in the hands of an individual with there own prejudices and preferences. Of course the power that the rep now has could start to corrupt his thought, actions and, of course, his vote.
Things could be played the other way - the reps could meet, come up with options and then take them back to the groups/communities for a preference to be found and then go back to the regional commitee to cast a vote. I won't go in to detail on this but I think it is clear that this removes the equality and creativity from the process even more.
I don't think I've expressed my thoughts very well here but it's the best I could do!
I have not come across answers to the problems here but still feel there must be some.
Anyone???
Feb 1 2013 22:48
Quote:
To be honest, I think a critique of the mainstream methods of addiction treatment--especially from a libertarian perspective--would be awesome. I know Chaz Bufe wrote this, are you familiar?
No, not familiar. I had a quick look and he raises some interesting points although whilst NA is adapted from AA its culture and structure are very different.
I'll do a full write up on this when I get the chance. Worth doing as it is a matter that effects the whole of society and there are so many misconceptions about it.
Feb 1 2013 22:58
Webby, I think it might be worth differentiating between delegate and representative. Reps are empowered to make decisions for the group while delegates only carry forward the wishes of the larger group.
So in the example I gave earlier, only locals/national organisations can bring forward motions. So the the motions always originate locally and are then taken up and discussed by the wider organisation, to be voted on by delegates in the final stage. Local groups do, however, have flexibility in how they mandate their delegate--from strict to open. And, in the event a local group determines their delegate has overstepped the mark, there are procedures in place to revisit that decision.
I don't know if that totally answers your question, but I'm sure other will be glad to fill in the blanks and clarify any points I've glossed over.
Feb 1 2013 23:30
I'm not sure if you've seen this (I couldn't find it in the libcom library), but I remember reading it a while back and thinking it quite good in parts. It might answer some questions:
Feb 2 2013 13:43
Slavearc - Thanks for your comments. I won't reply to them as in the example of NA so much background would be needed for my comments to make sense! Hopefully, when I do a write up on this some useful points will be made.
Chilli - You've certainly helped with my understanding of the correct terminology but my underlying dissatisfaction remains!
Tian - thanks for the link. It looks very interesting. I've made a start on reading it but as a newbie I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed by the amount of material that I need to read! This stood out though:
Quote:
When choosing a decisionmaking method, one needs to ask two questions. Is it a fair process? Does it produce good solutions?To judge the process, consider the following: Does the meeting flow smoothly? Is the discussion kept to the point? Does it take too long to make each decision? Does the leadership determine the outcome of the discussion? Are some people overlooked?
To judge the quality of the end result, the decision, consider: Are the people making the decision, and all those affected, satisfied with the result? To what degree is the intent of the original proposal accomplished? Are the underlying issues addressed? Is there an appropriate use of resources? Would the group make the same decision again?
I think that for concensus to work the group would need to have a set of principles that are the foundation for all decisions/actions taken by the group, a sort of mission statement if you like but with guidelines for what are and aren't acceptable means for fulfilling that mission.
Furthermore, I'll quote myself here:
Quote:
. I guess that a pre-requisite would be that those involved would be truly commited to the common good rather than driven by the desire to win or exercise control or just run their mouth.
Can comment on articles and discussions
it seems that a lot of people equate consensus with discussing things, and voting with simple majority voting, theres no reason why we can't have a discussion and try to reach agreement, and then vote, while setting the ratio of yes/no required for approval to something other than 50%+1