Consensus Decision-Making in Occupy

[Raúl Duke]

I feel kinda stupid for doing this, asking this question or whatever. Its probably been asked before.

So, yeah, about this consensus deal. DO all Occupy operate solely, only by consensus or do they fall back on some form of majority vote (i.e. 2/3 majority, simple, etc) in case consensus can't be reached?

I just want to hear a precedent about this because to be honest at my local occupy I mention that we should have a fall-back option on decision-making when consensus can't be reached and I was thinking of suggesting at least a 2/3 majority or something on a second round yet every time I subtly suggest it I seem to be rejected out of hand, not even considered, because, as far as I see it, a lot of occupiers tend to hold a childishly dogmatic view concerning consensus decision-making and don't even want to open it up for debate ever; putting blinders on the fact that with consensus decision-making the biggest failing is that sometimes, because consensus isn't reached, the minority gets its way, nothing gets done, etc.

So, what are your ideas, opinions on Occupy's use of consensus decision making? Do you know or are part of an occupy that resorts to some other form of decision making, like a majority vote of sorts, if consensus fails?

[W1N5T0N]

Occupy, sadly, are not deciding ANYTHING at the moment,
its governments and voters. :rolleyes:

[manic expression]

I hope not...consensus-only decision-making is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever encountered in leftist circles, it's a terrible dead-end and waters down politics and policies to the most meaningless level.

[Martin Blank]

Most local #Occupy groups use a modified "consensus" (e.g., Oakland uses a 90-percent "consensus") or have abandoned it altogether (e.g., the local #Occupy group I'm in uses simple majority).

Pure consensus has its dangers and pitfalls, I will give you that. But so does any other form of voting. This is because each structure can be manipulated, thus becoming a double-edged sword. With pure consensus, for example, not only can motions considered too radical be blocked, but so can motions considered to be too reformist or reactionary. You just have to pick and choose which balance is best.