Majority rule, or consensus rule In my model it is majority rule, 50% + 1, to break infinite stallmates. I don`t assume too many peoples are really capable of consensus rule. Majority rule is faster & easier, although you have the danger that an issue will flip erratically when the split is near 50%. You need a good sense of rationality and being service minded and generally of the same direction, in order for consensus rule to work within the councils. Between the people having consensus rule is even harder, one hard head can holp up an entire nation for his/her entire life. Consensus rule is more beautiful when it can be achieved. Often the truth is held by a small minority, it would only take a matter of time to convince everyone. Take the example of true economics, I`m the only person or one of the extremely few proposing it now. But it is just a matter of time before the truth is recognized (hopefully). To prevent the truth being lost when rushing ahead once a majority is achieved, it would be beneficial to first see if a consensus can be achieved in the council. If after a long long debate still not everyone favors what most in the council want, and if the debate has run its course and the differences are clear, you can cut the knot using the majority rule. Investing in achieving a consensus is worth the trouble, since the truth could be lurking in the mind of just one representative (or indeed, in none at all). To reconsile the council with itself, you could then ask all after a non-consensus decision was reached, if all agree that the protocols of the council had been met. Ideally all will agree, achieving a sense of unity again, despite the split. It may be very worthwhile to investigate the direct democracy of the Haudenosaunee, because they have made interesting rules for within the council for the various chiefs of the different nations. A general theme therein is: a sub-group if chiefs (delegates in my model, not chiefs in my model) discuss and reach a consensus. The subgroup is only a part of the 50 chiefs council. They refer the matter to another group who discuss the matter. If they agree with the first group, the first group proposes the matter the the next group. If they do not they refer the matter back to the first group to discuss it again with their concidderations. After discussing a matter with the considderations in mind from the next group, the first group again proposes it to that same group. These two groups go on like this until they reach consensus. The groups are known, they represent either clans or nations, depending on what council fire. How it exactly works: see the Great Law of Peace. The grand governing Council has 50 chiefs, the councils of the nations are comprised of the number of chiefs that nation has in the grand governing Council of the Haudenonausee. Something like this can easily be adapted for my delegates model. For example: the 50 delegates are subdivided into 5 sub-councils, each 10 people. These can for instance be grouped geographically, or on age. A matter can be discussed in the sub-council first. If a sub-council agrees (either by majority but better by consensus), it can be proposed to another sub-council. The choice of sub-council could be left free, this way the proposal is more likely to get a favorable hearing. When both sub-councils agree on a proposal, it is referred to the next group, and so on until all groups have discussed it. Then the entire council could come together to discuss the matter which is already discussed in the sub-councils. When it is debated through, it can pass. At that point there would usually be at least a majority in favor. But it is important to have the "grand debate" because 1 person who was not heard or understood properly in one sub-council, may convince the other sub-councils to change their minds. The Mohawk nation *), for instance, has 9 chiefs, belonging to 3 clans. The chiefs of each clan first debate with themselves, which is only 3 chiefs in a debate. The Mohawk chiefs form a group in the grand governing Council of the Haudenosaunee, there are 6 nations in that 50 chiefs council. The Mohawk law also specifies specific roles for each clan its chiefs, the "turtle clan listens to the concern of the people," for instance, the debate and can make a proposal to the bear clan. There is much beneficial detail to the Haudenosaunee law. One of the ritualistic things the Haudenosaunee has written in its law, is that there is a council "fire," a real fire. It may actually be a good idea also to burn a fire in the councils of my system. A real fire gives a sense of togetherness, warmth and so on. At the same time you have to make sure the fire does not burn you or burn down the house, and you have to tend it and keep it. Just like with your decisions for the nation: you have to make sure not to burn down the nation, to be careful, to tend the nation. If you do tend the nation carefully, it becomes a friendly fire that gives warmth & food. It may also be a very good idea to form extra-Constitutional women and men councils of the people themselves, because these may yield different answers and problems then mixed councils might. Once something has come up wherever, it can be referred to delegates, who can refer it to and debate it in the official councils. *) http://www.kahnawakelonghouse.com/index.php?mid=1 posted on Monday, March 09, 2009 12:16 PM Comments # re: Majority rule, or consensus rule jos boersema You can do it like so: When something is outdebated unfavorably between 2 sub-groups, the proposing sub-group can go to another sub-group. If that is outdebated unfavorably the proposing sub-group can go to yet another sub-group, until all sub-groups are debated. Whenever the proposal has changed, they can again appeal all groups for the proposal. At any time the council can decide to debate whatever issue it wants, although it is best to wait until an issue is outdebated between the sub-groups because everyone has had the chance to learn, think about it and debate about it. A debate between 50 people is not very easy, even 10 people is quite a few, it is easier if the subject is already well known. The sub-groups themselves could divide into 5 groups of 2, 3 groups of 3 one of which + 1, and/or 2 groups of 5, to debate it in yet smaller grouplets. That is particularly useful in the beginning when an issue comes up and it first needs to be understood. Of course it is always a good thing to sleep over an issue, one or more nights. Once understanding the issue; the next day forming an initial opinion if any and/or listening to opinions, possibilities, concerns, ideas, alternatives; the next day again debating it or a day of not debating it, while remembering all what was said; the next day or later a deciding debate, or more debating. Better decisions are made after more thinking & debating, over longer periods. It is probably a good idea if each sub-group has a fixed name for itself which remains the same in the life of that council. There seems to be no need that sub-groups debate with each other at the same time or location, indeed that may be very confusing and causes time pressure on groups debating longer then others. An interesting point of note is that the voter-groups, by default also have 50 persons, and can potentially organize debates in exactly the same ways as the councils. I would think it is probably a good idea to organize a short break, say half an hour or so, before a vote if a vote is necessary, and before the vote ask if anyone has changed their minds and wants to say something about it, then vote. Then ask whether the protocols where done properly so the whole council stands behind the procedure. It may be sad that consensus can not always be reached, but consensus is a very, very high demand. The danger is everything will lock up, which is not good either, and could greatly disappoint a majority. It is then better to disappoint a minority rather then a majority. If things never work out for a minority, it may be time to relocate to an area / council that is more the same, or indeed to gather up with numbers along a national border and pursue legal sovereignty. * Maybe it is an idea that those losing a vote take an unburnt log/branch, pass it from hand to hand between them, and lay it at the front of the unburnt logs/branches. The log/branch would represent their sadness over losing the vote and not getting their way. It would lie on the front of the logs to remember the sadness. Then the question is asked whether protocol was met, and all (ordinarily) would agree. If not, then that means a real problem exists, or indeed some delegate may be unfit to sit on the council. After it is agreed all agree, the sadness log/branch is thrown on the fire by someone of the group who originally made the proposal. Everyone will think one last time on the path not taken and try to comfort those who lost something, and when it is burnt up, that is the end. Ideally everyone works honestly to make a success of the chosen path, also those losing their choice. Often, what really was best will never be known, or neither was really better then the other choice. Many other times it will be known, those who ended up voting wrong, the minority or majority, will then do best to learn for next time. A unanimous decision may also very well be wrong. Posted @ 3/9/2009 2:18 PM # re: Majority rule, or consensus rule jos boersema When a council grows larger then 50 (only possible for 1st level delegation councils, the others are always 50 persons by definition), the sub-groups could each absorb one more person, until there are 60, resulting in a new sub-group. That all the way up to 100 persons in the council, which can then split into 2 x 50 person councils again. A person that gets no ear in its sub-group for an idea, can of course lobby other individuals, who might then lobby their sub-groups. Posted @ 3/9/2009 4:41 PM Post Comment Grouplet 1/5th council agenda: ------------------------------ Added: Mon Jan 25 18:07:15 UTC 2010 The rule is to have a regular item 1 week on the agenda before discussing, and an issue of law 2 month. It would be beneficial (essential) to have the voice of the people be heard in the debate and decision making. If an issue is to be discussed by the red grouplet (say they are color coded red, blue, yellow, white, brown) for next week, everyone (including the people) can prepare. Then the issue is discussed (publicly), if the red grouplet finishes the debate and settles on a proposal, it can decide to which other grouplet to forward that proposal, say the blue grouplet. Then the blue grouplet can put it on their agenda for again one week prior, and so on. This gives the people ample time to inject their opinions into the process. At minimum it would take 6 weeks, each week one debate in one grouplet, before it is to be debated and voted upon. This gives the people a lot of opportunity to see where things are going with the council. From the grouplet perspective they can also test the public by learning public reaction to the statements and conclusions of one grouplet. If the public reacts strongly against the red grouplet its proposal, then obviously the blue grouplet could have an easy time by following that outcry, sending back an ammended proposal for the red grouplet. This could make those blue grouplet members more endearing to the public (self-interest), hence this probably works. A nice thing is also that another group within the people might now contra-react to the blue grouplet its ammendments. It may be that the earlier outcry was 'merely' a vocal minority, but now the real storm breaks out. Then rather then pushing the proposal back to the blue grouplet, the originating red grouplet might make some modifications and not push it back to red who might now be preparing to be obstinate for the sake of obstinacy. They may for example push it toward the yellow group, who might attempt to strike a balance to all that has happened in the grouplets and public on the subject sofar, including their own views. This gets back to the red group again. Now there are still 2 grouplets who haven't publicly/officially reviewed the whole subject, who can still review it. When the blue group who is in a mood of obstinacy (say) is encountered by a 4 to 1 grouplet majority, they may cave in and attempt to work positively to a resolution (or they would lose the vote anyway), but try to score some minor points say. Beyond this there is still the possibility that the proposal bounces back and forth more then 5 times (in theory it could bounce around infinitely.) It would seem this would work very well. I think it is very possible to have a reasonable effective meeting with exactly 10 persons. It seems very unlikely the process could get hyjacked by rough people, or get disowned by people too meek to say one word. I'd say it is more important to make good decisions then to make quick decisions. If speed is needed one could always convene a complete council meeting in the first round. This leaves the law-making, for which the period is 2 month (!). That seems quite long, however law is extremely important and far reaching; it is making an infinite number of decisions by making one decision ('not one car will one trip or stretch drive on the right side of the road, but all cars will always ...'). At a 2 month distance from one grouplet to the next, red + 2 month, blue + 2 month, yellow + 2 month, white + 2 month, brown + 2 month, complete council + 2 month = 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 12 month = 1 year. By taking one grouplet at the time, at the soonest passing all grouplets it takes 1 year to decide on a law (and another 2 month to have it become active). This could go significantly slower if the proposal bounces a couple of times red - blue - red - blue - red - blue - yellow - red/blue - brown - red/blue/yellow - white - red/blue/yellow - total = 13 bounces at 2 month each = 26 month total = 2 years and 2 month. I note this bouncing around is only occuring between a mere 50 people. But not, because the whole object of the delay is to get the people involved too. Activity -> silence ..... activity -> silence ...... . I don't think it is unreasonable to take so long to pass a law, because a law is very important. There is also a provision in the constitution for emergencies. Through that the entire delay can be circumvented: something can be discussed when it comes up and ends up decided that day. This way it is for example possible to make a provisional emergency decision, also on matters of law. The law issue concerned can then still pass through all the grouplets in due process and time, even if it is merely for the sake of process (for the sake of drawing in the public scruteny). The long-winded process gives the voter groups more time to appoint another delegate, for example if they are dissatisfied with what their delegate is doing in some process, and the delegate refuses to listen. Since the process is quite long before actual voting, this leaves more opportunity to get another delegate in without disrupting the proceedings of the council with backtracking on earlier decisions on the request of newly put in delegates who are supposed to vote differently. Council agenda same grouplet, same subject, multi-day debate ------------------------------------------------------------ Fri Jan 29 18:25:41 UTC 2010 If a grouplet discusses some proposal and does not reach a final conclusion in the time scheduled, this could mean it has to be re-scheduled to occur in another 2 month (in case of a law) time since it has to be 2 month on the agenda. Maybe a solution is to schedule a certain time in the week (or so), or even day, where unfinished debates can be continued and possibly be concluded. The entry on the council agenda could read that it would be debated at a certain time, and be debated further shortly thereafter if the debate has not been concluded. When that is a general rule or perhaps noted on the agenda as some sort of header or instruction guide, then I guess the constitutionally demanded waiting period would have been met because the notice that 'it would be debated further' would have been on the agenda for the required time. This may also be good for the debate, because to debate an issue with long waiting periods in between may not promote attention. Example: every day between 15:00 and 16:00 not concluded non-law debates continue, and every friday is devoted to not concluded debates first about law, if none available about non-law issues. A benefit might be that if it is common tradition to cut a debate short if it is left not concluded that the agenda can be strictly kept for the day (not concluded debate is cut when time is up, doesn't run overtime), then the debate issues can simmer in the minds of all concerned and perhaps reach a (better?) conclusion later. I suppose if no such provisions are made, then one would have to reschedule according to the agenda waiting periods, so that the People know the when and where (or: cause a trial case at the law court ? Maybe the law court has other ideas about what the law means, they are the authority after all (then), not this site (seriously).). Faster council agenda --------------------- Another interpretation of the constitution is to have a complete (50 or more delegates, all grouplets) council agenda set for over 2 weeks / 2 month, and start after 2 weeks / 2 month with the grouplet process (fulfilling the mandated waiting period only once for an issue). In this fast model after the waiting period the grouplet bounce a proposal around at their own convenience without having to set new agendas and waiting periods. A downside is that the complete council is involved in setting an agenda with the grouplets increasing the threshold for new items to be considered (which would be easy if grouplets act more independently), although it could also be beneficial (making the official announcements of issues to be considered more transparent for all grouplets and people.) It could be done that the grouplet that wants to start with an issue on its own exclusive initiative (not debated in the complete council) decides to put it on its own grouplet agenda for after 2 weeks / 2 month. That this would provide the constitutional waiting period and thereafter a proposal could bounce at leisure and convenience between the grouplets and complete council. I suppose for clarity sake that such a grouplet agenda then isn't an obscure element, to make the waiting period have meaning for preparation (of the council and people). An intermediate model could have a grouplet start at its own initiative, have the waiting period, then bounce it around between the grouplets, then have a complete council agenda setting meeting and then schedule the item for after the mandated waiting period. That way each 'process' (grouplets bouncing and complete council) both do the waiting period only once. Summary: -------- Slow model: Each grouplet and the complete council only debates after the waiting period. Things could be re-debated quickly if a debate is not finished in that grouplet (or extremely slow: be re-scheduled again for after the waiting period). Fast model: The waiting period is done only once, either by the complete council being involved or only one grouplet on its own initiative, and then an issue bounces around at leisure between the grouplets and complete council until it is resolved. Medium model: The waiting period is done at the start, but then again when the issue passes from the grouplets bouncing toward the complete council (medium-slow could be that a waiting period is set each time an issue passes from grouplets to council but also from council to grouplets.)