Policy Slam! - Consensus voting

Brief Description:

Policy Slam! is a two to three hour workshop format incorporating the consensus voting method.

Description:

Consensus voting identifies that option which enjoys the most overall support. There are three stages. First, all join in a debate in which a team of ?consensors? draws up a balanced list of options. Secondly, in the vote, participants are invited to rank these options according to their preferences. The higher the preference, the greater the number of points.

Finally, the votes are counted. If there are six options on the ballot paper, and if a voter indicates a ranking for all six, then a first preference gets six points, a second preference five points, and so on. The winner is the option with the most points overall.

The workshop usually involves:

• Identifying a range of options in advance, plus someone to speak for each one
• An initial consensus vote to guide the conversation
• Inviting members of the audience to propose additional options
• Table discussions of each option
• Speakers revise their options in the light of the discussion. Some proposals may be merged.
• A second vote
• A review of the vote to identify where lies the greatest level of consensus.

Used For:

• Responding to consultations where there a range of options is offered
• Participatory budgeting
• Conflict situations where people are locked into an either/or mentality
• Elections. These can be organisational as well as political ? one organisation used consensus voting to elect two people to lead the organisation for the following year.

Suitable participants:

Anybody, provided they have a stake in the issue.

Cost:

As for most workshops, although more expensive if e.g. voting handsets are used.

Time Requirements:

Policy Slam! is a two to three hour workshop format.

When To Use / What It Can Deliver:

When there are or should be a range of options on the table.

When Not To Use / What It Cannot Deliver:

When there isn?t a clear decision to take.

Strengths:

In addition to the points above about revealing the level of consensus, there are the following plusses:

1) It avoids a minority losing out completely. This is the principal weakness of a majority vote. For a minority to lose out totally can be very dangerous. In the words of Sarajevo newspaper, Oslobodjenje, ?all the wars in the former Yugoslavia started with a referendum?. In each instance, the vote was the fuse which ignited the conflict.

2) It avoids giving one person or organisation the power to decide the options. When Margaret Thatcher pushed through the poll tax, there were two A versus B votes (poll tax versus status quo, and council tax versus poll tax). Alternatives such as local income tax (Lib-Dem) or land tax (Green) were never voted on.

3 It engages everyone in constructive dialogue. In an either/or debate, every protagonist will talk up their choice and criticise the alternative.
With consensus voting, she/he has an incentive to engage with all the voters, in the hope of persuading them to rate her/his particular option,
say, third instead of fifth. Maybe she/he adapts that option slightly to make it more appealing.

Weaknesses:

Policy Slam! events need careful management as a lot is attempted in a short space of time. And they need several people to fulfil different roles.

Origin:

Consensus voting was invented by French mathematicians over 200 hundred years ago. Its leading advocate over the last 30 years is Peter Emerson of the de Borda Institute in Belfast. Policy Slam! has been developed by nef (the new economics foundation) with support from the Democratic Innovation Fund of the Ministry of Justice.

Case Studies:

Related Methods

• Consensus Conference
• Consensus Voting

Restrictions In Use

Further Information

Contact Perry Walker of the new economics foundation on 020 7820 6360 or Perry.Walker@neweconomics.org A briefing on how to run a Policy Slam! will be available in February 2010.

Contact the de Borda Institute via www.deborda.org

Popular Methods

21st Century Town Meeting

Citizens Jury

Deliberative Polling

Open Space

Participatory Appraisal

Participatory Budgeting

Webcasting