Proposal to lower the consensus requirement for GA voting

[senatorclaydavis]

The 90% consensus requirement for General Assembly voting is a rule that was initiated at an earlier point in the Occupy Chicago movement, the time has come for us to address our changing needs so we can nurture the movements momentum as we increase our ability to meet short-term and long-term goals. Therefore, I am proposing to change the 90% consensus to a 75% consensus. This would allow decisions to be reached in a quicker and less disruptive manner and will reduce the number of multiple re-proposals. By lowering the needed amount of approval votes but still operating with a super-majority threshold, we can maintain the importance of consensus in a more manageable and achievable form. This will also limit the counter effect of widespread disagreement produced when a popular vote is blocked by a small minority (the obverse of the consensus process's intent) To be clear, this would not alter the voting process in any way other than lowering the number needed for approval.

[BenBurton]

I would suggest we do a better job of explaining the necessity for specific proposals and be very clear about how they support and connect with our mission and (once we have them) the overall goals for Occupy Chicago.

90% consensus isn't as difficult as it would seem if you're working with a well informed group of people. It's a very powerful motivator for the people proposing ideas.

Take the Chicago Principles vote for example. I was swayed from leery to ambivalent. I could just as easily get swayed to advocate with a little more clarification. The onus is on the people making a proposal to make sure reasoning for a proposal reverberates.

The proposals for Occupy Chicago should all support the mission which makes them pretty easily eligible for 90% consensus.

[Kelvin]

I've said this many times but I think the problem lies in how exactly we come to consensus. 90% voting threshold does not signify coming to consensus. Hearing out concerns from people and making earnest attempts to address those concerns is reach consensus. Likewise, people who have concerns and see that an attempt is being made to address those concerns will naturally step aside once they see that every attempt has been made to address their concerns. It's not hard to reach 90% consensus when you do it that way. We should also go back to the point whereby people voting against a proposal should explain their block.

[m_x]

90% consensus isn't as difficult as it would seem if you're working with a well informed group of people. It's a very powerful motivator for the people proposing ideas.

Key word was "if". We constantly have new people showing up (which is awesome!) and they should be allowed to take part in the democratic process. Although they should take it upon themselves to be informed if they are going to exercise the right to vote. One of the nays the other night specifically said "more time is needed to discuss these". This was simply an uninformed opinion (this has been debated in several locations for over a week).

When numbers are low it gives a minority the ability to block something there is a fair amount of consensus on. Only needing 11% gives an awful lot of power for a small fraction to block what is largely agreed upon.

I think a super majority is important because it encourages discussion and consensus building.

To much power in the hands of a minority is just as dangerous as a simple majority.

[Kelvin]

As much as people have lamented the fact that proposals like this or housing or Chicago spring did not pass on the first run. The proposals passed with a significantly wider margin on the second round when an attempt was made to address those concerns. I think the problem we have now is that we don't have a system whereby that happens before a vote occurs.

[BenBurton]

We should also go back to the point whereby people voting against a proposal should explain their block.

I think that's a great idea.

When numbers are low....

When numbers are low probably not much should ever pass. It showed pretty good restraint that Tech didn't try to pass their proposal with low numbers. People aren't always going to be that accommodating.

And I would guess that what you thought had a "fair amount of consensus" actually didn't, which is why it didn't pass. Friday's proposal had a lot of publicity and that brought a lot of people out. That's a good thing.

To get it passed people should be asking what do we have to do for the next week to get them to believe in the proposal, not lowering the consensus level and making it easier to pass.

[m_x]

We should be keeping in my that nearly every vote is made up of an entirely different base, this is why giving too much power to a minority is dangerous.

Ben my point about low numbers relates to just the other night, five people were able to vote down something the rest of the group agreed upon. Two of the nays seemed to have come simply to block the proposal (they provided no discourse in relation why they objected) and one of them seems to be out of touch with the general aim of the movement. Numbers had dwindled by the time the vote had actually occurred, having known the position of quite a few of those who left I can almost guarantee the proposal would have passed.

75% still requires a super majority, it just takes some of the power away from the minority.

Ben and Kelvin, why do you feel that giving so much power to a minority is important?

[Kelvin]

That's a false distinction, having such a high threshold is the only means we have right now that would make the majority want to address minority concerns. If instead we structured more consensus into the debate prior to the vote, the actual threshold in my opinion would be moot.

[Rojo]

This is what Andy wants people to show solidarity with when he proposes respecting other groups divergent tactics. However, the people confronting these thugs, are in fact Occupiers themselves. We have the ability to set the standards here in Chicago and say what is and isn't acceptable. And I'm sure some will say they are Police provocateurs. Okay,so then why all of this talk defending diverse tactics and "strategic property damage" if it's only being committed by the Police? Think people. You are being manipulated here, not by the Police, but by a wolf in sheep's clothing.

And if setting a minimum standard for behavior is going to splinter us, how come that hasn't happened in Oakland? Because that's where this video was shot.

http://youtu.be/iXIy915c8tg

[BenBurton]

Rojo,

Your spamming is annoying.