[lbo-talk] Re: consensus-direct-representative democracy etc

Gar Lipow lipowg at sprintmail.com
Sat May 31 12:00:42 PDT 2003


On: Sat, 31 May 2003 10:44:17 -0400 Chuck0 <chuck at mutualaid.org> wrote:
>...In consensus, if the big ego doesn't have a legitimate reason to
block something, then the group continues with the process.

And if the big ego is stubborn consensus remains blocked. The process is stymied eternally. Consensus is based on privileging minority rights over majority rights. It is fundamentally conservative - drastically favoring things as they are over change. If 99 people in a 100 member group want to change something, that 1 person out of 100 who is against in can "block consensus" essentially excercising a veto power.

And - quoting what comes next out of order, because I think the above was the more important point to address:


> 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



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list