Maybe it's just because I get so anxious around anything resembling confrontation (yeah, I know), but I worry that consensus lends itself to people feeling if not coerced then silenced. Your voice matters so much more when even as a single hold-out you can block a move -- yes, I know it sounds so weird to say "this system makes voices matter and therefore it's a bad system." I suppose it could really radically revolutionize the way that conversation and "holy conferencing" happen ... I'm just not that optimistic.
Tiffany said that one thing she loves about United Methodism is that they get together every 4 years and can change things -- that nothing is set in stone. I would think a move to a consensus method would mean that however things were when consensus started would be how they would stay for a very very long time. It would also make the issue of who gets how many delegates to GC a much huger issue (which might well be a good thing -- I would certainly agree that the current delegate divvying-up system is flawed).
I'm really intrigued, however, to learn that there is in fact a major governing/legislating body that uses consensus.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-04-14 06:06 pm (UTC)Tiffany said that one thing she loves about United Methodism is that they get together every 4 years and can change things -- that nothing is set in stone. I would think a move to a consensus method would mean that however things were when consensus started would be how they would stay for a very very long time. It would also make the issue of who gets how many delegates to GC a much huger issue (which might well be a good thing -- I would certainly agree that the current delegate divvying-up system is flawed).
I'm really intrigued, however, to learn that there is in fact a major governing/legislating body that uses consensus.