Building consensus online
From:
Michael Allan
Date:
Feb 09 10:35 UTC
Short link
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 02:27:19PM -0000, James Gilmour wrote:
>
> I would not be at all hopeful that the suggested rational approaches
> to dealing with the lack of consensus set out in Michael's last
> message would prevail. The divisions on this particular issue run
> very deep and produce visceral responses. When the issue is like
> this one, in politics, as in love and war, "all is fair".
To help frame my answer, imagine we can listen in on the community:
*** joining channel #unicon ... synced in 0.071 secs
marc. Ciao Marianne, I like your idea of a Universal Constitution.
I've cast my vote for you!
mari. Thanks Marcello!
marc. I have to say, though, I think your own vote in the EU election
is *irrational*. Pardon me, but you see, you've voted for the
null draft of the Constitution (in other words against the
entire process of agreement). Logically, that means you want
all EU administrative institutions to be dismantled, and all
formal cooperation among European states to end.
mari. Oh dear, that's not what I intended! I would agree to keeping
agreements on cross-border issues, and common institutions
to administer them. What I'm opposed to is the added layer
of *government*.
marc. I thought so Marianne, that's why I wanted to speak with you.
You see, there's a group of us here in Napoli, and we're
working on a draft of the constitution that would reduce the EU
to its essential administrative and economic functions.
I'd like to send you an email, outlining our proposal.
mari. Yes please. I think I could vote for a proposal like that.
marc. We could use your vote, Marianne, it carries a lot of weight.
Even though you're only voting for the null draft, you have
many backers. No surprise there. You've become popular with
the voters.
mari. Oh, those are only my neighbours here in the village. They
vote for me in *all* the elections. And I hardly know how
to cast my own vote! It's a good thing my village has not
so many people... But I'll forward your email to them,
so they know I'm thinking of shifting my vote to your proposal.
marc. No need Marianne, I can see their addresses here. I'll CC them.
I'm sending it now...
mari. Thanks Marcello!
marc. My pleasure, and good luck in your work on the Constitution.
Ciao Marianne.
mari. Ciao Marcello.
*** quitting channel #unicon
*** joining channel #albion ... synced in 0.043 secs
chri. So which draft of the EU constitution are you voting for, Nick?
Or do you have your own draft, like me?
nick You're kidding me, Christabel. I'm voting against the whole
thing. Brussels can stuff it.
chri. Are you out of your tree? Brussels is opposed to it. If we
don't reach *some* kind of agreement, then we're stuck
with whatever the Eurocrats give us. Nick, you're voting
for the status quo!
...
chri. Look Nicky, you know me, we see eye-to-eye. Why not vote
for me on this one?
nick Hmmm...
chri. You see, I've gathered quite a few votes for my draft. It's no
big deal, I've only made a few changes here and there. But
they listen to me. The drafter I'm voting for (she has a lot
of votes) she's using my changes! And so on, up the line.
It's kind of fun.
> So I would foresee those most opposed to "the constitution project"
> pursuing at least four lines of opposition:
>
> 1. register a vote against whatever is proposed.
Yes, and that would be irrational, because no single proposal is on
the table; rather people are free to make their own proposals, or
choose from the full range of those previously proposed. However,
over time (as suggested in the IRC chats above), the community would
correct its own irrational voting.
> 2. start a counter "petition" to oppose the whole constitution-
> writing exercise.
This is rational (if I understand), provided it is carried out in an
appropriate context. Scenario 4 (my previous post) is an example of
this kind of context shifting.
> 3. submit "wrecking amendments" to every proposal - these can be
> dressed up to look quite reasonable but would make the end product
> inoperable and so, useless.
That would not be possible in the particular process that I propose.
There is no way to filibuster the community, and wreck the consensus
of others. Amendments that are unpopular, or unreasonable, would
simply be ignored. (If Christabel's amendments did not make sense,
then the higher drafter would not have adopted them. She would have
spoken to Christabel, and explained the problem to her.)
> 4. engage in a vicious "dirty tricks" campaign against the proponents
> of the constitution and against the whole project.
Using external channels, like mass media and so on? I imagine that
would occur. It's to be expected. People often disagree. It's
politics as usual. But it could not, in itself, prevent consensus
from forming in an open, grassroots process.
There is no guarantee, however, that the process will culminate in a
single, majority consensus. If a majority is impossible owing to real
social divisions, then the process will culminate in the exposure of
those divisions. They will be exposed in concrete terms, fully
qualified and quantified. That would be a good thing, I think.