>What's not clear to me is why a small political party should favor
>the majority vote over consensus decision-making. If your party is
>small, you will fare better in consensus-decision making, as you can
>block any proposal that you oppose but the majority favor.
The same issue came up at the Midwest student conference in Chicago. The ISO favored majority voting, there was a section that favored consensus decision-making, and ultimately they compromised on requiring 60% to take any action.
But as to why the various elements were favoring the processes they were favoring, it's complicated. Yoshie is right that it's not just "maneuvering for advantage" by the ISO. It has to do with differences about how the organization should actually work. Frankly, as someone who has sat through those "consensus" meetings, one reason for wanting to be able to go forward without consensus is that it can be hard to get anything done that way. You go for weeks without being able to put out a leaflet.
On the other hand, there is an advantage for organized and experienced forces in getting their views across and winning over a majority in a setting like that. Frankly I don't see this as necessarily a problem. But there are people who are very much on guard against the "tyranny of the organized and experienced". It has to do with the whole question of leadership and authority (in the Engels sense) in a movement. This movement is bringing in a lot of new people, and there is a tension between the thesis that "new people should learn from the experienced people!" (favored by ham-fisted Leninists) and the antithesis that "new people should have complete control!" (favored by anarchist demagogues). (At least such are the characterizations made by each side of the other, on a bad day.) You don't need much Hegel to recognize the need for a synthesis.
Lou Paulsen