>>Why can't a neighborhood group using consensus send a delegate to
>>a city-wide group using consensus which then sends a delegate to a
>>regional group that uses consensus?
>
>Imagine this process in New York city - lets say ending up with
>forty delegates. Forty New Yorkers meet in a room to represent New
>York - in all of its' diversity of people and opinions. If forty New
>Yorkers, truly representing NYC, reach a consensus about anything -
>something has gone terribly, horribly, tragically wrong
There's a strange conception of democracy you often hear among direct action types. We need more of it - less mediated, less blunted, more spontaneous. But it seems to apply only to a small, preselected population. Democracy in the U.S. could mean more theocracy and fewer civil liberties. But surely the direct democrats don't want that. So how can this direct democracy or consensus model apply to any population with significantly divergent interests or beliefs?
Doug