Post in Building consensus online

Feb 07 08:17 UTC

Miles Fidelman wrote:

> Simon Smith wrote:
>
> > My main concern would be over how realistic it is to get those numbers
> > involved in an intensive consensus-building exercise, particularly if they
> > are to be recruited to represent the spectrum of social interests and
> > demographic groups in the population. ...
>
> The third possibility [B-3] is creating some kind of process that forces
> discussion, leading to consensus. And here's where the question of
> tools linking large groups becomes particularly interesting. ...

This is the model I advocate.  Provided it is open to the full
electorate (and the consensus itself is unforced), then it's the same
model as Votorola (so I have an interest).  It has these advantages:

  * fits the theory of consensus formation in society (Habermas)

  * will attract more participants, and thus more legitimacy

  * enables communities (as opposed to a self-interested government)
    to frame the agenda for discourse and consensus

  * enables communities to effectively coordinate state power

This last point has implications.  Once consensus forms in a
community, it will naturally tap into state power via the electoral
system.  Whatever the medium of consensus we develop, if it works for
backing policy, then it will also work for backing legislation and
nominating executives.  If we place such a medium at the disposal of a
community, then they will employ it for these purposes: they will
independently express the policy they want pursued, the laws they want
enacted, and the officials they want empowered.  Strictly speaking,
that would be a revolution.  If party financing and party discipline
were undermined by these changes (as appears likely), then no
parliamentary government could stand against a willful and clearly
expressed consensus.  (The executive of a republic could stand in
opposition, but only until the next election.)