[EM] some questions about utility

[James Gilmour]

> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 3:02 PM
> It is not necessarily limited to that. This is called "consensus," 
> and many groups are trying it. Yes, it is generally considered 
> impractical for large groups, but there are organizational structures 
> and techniques which can make (and, in a few circumstances, have 
> succeeded in making) broad consensus possible. Usually, as the group 
> becomes very large, it does become necessary to, more often than not, 
> make decisions without the consent of a small number, but consensus 
> organizations, even large ones, can be surprisingly effective in 
> generating broad agreement. That we would often think this impossible 
> is because our standard institutions don't place high value on 
> consensus, and so don't put the necessary effort into finding it. 
> Those organizations which *do* value consensus, if they implement it 
> properly and sanely, find that the organizational unity is greatly 
> strengthened. There is a major organization, founded in the 1940s, 
> which succeeded where many others had failed before, to the extent 
> that it rapidly, within a relatively few years, had meetings in 
> almost every small town in the United States, and which is common 
> around the world as well. It succeeded because of, I think, an 
> analysis by the theoretician-founder, a stockbroker by trade, of what 
> had caused previous attempts to fail, and he developed organizational 
> principles which, among other things, were designed to maximize 
> consensus. It worked.
> 
> The organization is Alcoholics Anonymous, and anyone who has 
> participated in AA to the extent that they know how the structure 
> works (you would not necessarily get this simply by attending a few 
> meetings), I find, understands this immediately. So far, however, 
> this understanding has not been translated into broader applications, 
> though it *has* been translated into a host of similar programs for 
> dealing with various psychological issues.

This is very interesting, especially with regard to the election of "assemblies" (used here as a generic word for
councils, state legislatures, parliaments, etc) operating within a "representative democracy".  At which level should
the consensus operate?  Should the consensus operate among the voters?  Or should be consensus operate within the
elected assembly?

A voting system that sought to maximise the consensus among the voters might well result in the exclusion from the
elected assembly of representatives of some smaller, but significant groups of voters.  Those voters would then have no
voice in that assembly.  On the other hand, if the consensus is to operate within the assembly, the aim of the voting
system could well be to maximise the diversity of representation elected to the assembly, so that the greatest number of
significant views might be directly represented.  If there is any parallel with the AA example, it is a consensus within
the assembly, not a consensus among the voters.  I appreciate one has to accept the opposite conclusion in respect of
single-winner elections (city mayor, state governor, etc), where you have no option but to look for consensus among the
voters.

James Gilmour