"A Anthere" anthere8@yahoo.com schrieb:
- When people vote, they inherently think
"democracy". They set percentage for acceptance or reject. That implies we tolerate to set aside the view of minorities. Supposingly, we should work per consensus. I already said my opinion about what consensus was a while ago. As for me, it is not per majority, 51 % 75% 90%. I consider consensus is 100%, given that in the 100%, some do not care at all, some are not happy but can live the decision, and some are satisfied. A 90% satisfaction, leaving in utter madness and despair the leftover minority of 10 miserable % is a bad choice for and is not consensus. Everyone should make effort to be consensual, but veto should be a "right" to me.
But what do you do plan to do if everything is vetoed by someone?
Andre Engels
But what do you do plan to do if everything is vetoed by someone?
Indeed; the problem with running on 100% consensus is that while it tolerates disagreement, it requires rational individuals capable of flexibility and dealing with not getting their way.
When you have one fanatic joining the argument, then only one outcome can possibly give 100% consensus; the fanatic gets what they want.
When two fanatics who disagree with each other join the argument, then consensus (as-defined-above) is impossible.
One can then suggest a concept of 'rough consensus' which is how this place generally works. Things get done if a very small number of people contest, IF the majority thinks that their objections are unreasonable. This overcomes the 'solitary fanatics' problem, but introduces the problem that the community gets to decide whose opinion doesn't count. The good thing about 'rough consensus' is that only a very small proportion of involved parties can be so excluded, or it becomes obvious that this is no longer 'rough consensus' but 'majority rule'.
-Matt (User:Morven)