Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

I does not force them to find consensus, but if you‘re the minority you just have to „accept“ your loss and do as the majorities optinion were you‘re opinion. Which makes - imo - an oppisiotion useless, which is a good thing (you can‘t block progress if you don‘t agree).


sort by: page size:

Don’t they suggest that they don’t want to simply take the majority vote? I’m not really sure whether by consensus you mean the majority opinion or a smaller more shared opinion so maybe I’m misunderstanding.

Do you mean consensus as in the will of the majority forced on the minority?

I don't think consensus needs to be unanimously affirmative in order to make progress. Even dissent can be a form of consensus, in that everyone in this group acknowledges the proposed course of action, and have formed their positions relative to it.

Majority is consensus?

Why do you need consensus at all?

In many cases, "consensus" is just rubbing salt in the wounds of the losers -- not only do they not get their way, they have to pretend that they agree with the outcome that is decided on. As David Mitchell once said in one of his monologues, the idea of consensus robs people of the ability to say "I told you so!" when the bad idea that the majority favored fails, because with consensus you have to share responsibility with those who favored the idea.

We don't need consensus since consensus is impossible with a large population. You just need a vast majority and the vast majority agree on the winning condition.

The real problem is that there is a tyranny of sorts involved, whether by the majority or the minority is not really all that important. Consensus building should be the norm, not to ram your view down other people's throats because you can.

You have to get supporters for consensus to shift. If an approach isn't working then you have to know why and acknowledge it.

It doesnt matter how you feel about acknowledging it, consensus wont shift if the approach doesnt change.


Which forces them to find consensus.

The problem with 'consensus' as a whole is, its not always possible.

Just because you do something doesn't mean you agree with it.


Surely if there was consensus, you wouldn't get to vote.

That is not what consensus is. That's what majority politics is. Two groups that come to agreement through their leadership is not consensus, it's leadership-based agreements. There can be dissension within each of the groups. So you don't have consensus.

Majority is not consensus. Consensus is not a magical garnish word, it has its own meaning. What you are describing is populism.

How does it work? Make it look like a consensus

One significant advantage of consensus is that once you're able to get past disagreement you have everyone pulling in the same direction. That's not to say that there're no disadvantages, but it's often overlooked.

Creating rules by consensus is actually a terrible way to ensure that those with views counter to the majority are treated fairly.

How? It’s not designed for consensus.

The more opinions there are from different people the harder it is to reach consensus?
next

Legal | privacy