> 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.
>
I think you are overly focused on the blocking part of consensus over the other more important aspects of consensus, including the stuff that conensus does to get people motivated behind a decision. Instead of merely voting for a decision, people feel that they have a stake becuase they got to participate more fully in the process.
Yes, a block is like having veto power, but you can't block stuff just for the hell of it. Blocks are necessary because they help a group look at all the options concerning a decision. If people block a proposal, the group talks about the issues and makes changes. Most of the time, the changes will either get the blocker(s) to consense on the proposal, or stand aside. Sometimes a block can't be resolved, which means that a proposal may need to be tabled and discussed at future meetings. In some cases, a block may reflect a fundamental disagreement within a group. In a situation like this, it might be wise for the person(s) to leave the group and/or form their own group.
You argue that consensus privileges minority rights over the majority, but other systems do that exactly, by privileging leadership, or the agenda of a small steering committee over the input of the entire group. The group is expected to rubberstamp the proposals and if there is dissent, it can frequently be forced through using majority rule decision-making. The problem with this is that it alienates the minority.
> 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
New York City is a horribly atypical example.
Chuck0