A mere 27 votes defeated West Kelowna’s plan to build a new city hall. A three per cent shortfall squashed B.C.’s 1995 referendum on electoral reform. Last June, fewer than two per cent of British voters pulled the plug on the European Union. Do these kinds of figures reflect a clear mandate for action? If just 14 people had voted differently in the West Kelowna referendum, the city council would now be negotiating $15 million in funding, instead of licking its wounds. That’s democracy, some will say. If you give the people a vote, you have to accept their decision. But do a few votes either way genuinely reflect the will of the people? The 1995 referendum on Quebec sovereignty failed by less than one per cent. The margin was tiny; the consequences massive. A figurative handful of voters could have broken up a country of 30 million people.

Continuing hostilities

Narrow margins reflect not the people’s preferences but their deep divisions. In West Kelowna, Ian Graham, a leader of the No side, said the vote had created a split in the community that he does not believe the current council will be able to heal. The coming U.S. election is a classic example. Does anyone seriously believe that whoever wins the presidency, the other half of the American electorate will gracefully accept the people’s choice? Hardly likely. The losers will fight the incumbent for at least the next four years. I suspect most people would agree that the present system is not perfect. But they can’t see any alternative.

Ideals and realities
We need to distinguish between the principle of democracy, the ideal that people are capable of governing themselves, and the voting process. If you consider democracy a sacred cow -- exempt from any criticism -- you probably won’t like Winston Churchill’s comment: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” Churchill was no idealist. He also said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Ideally, as an instructor in parliamentary procedure once taught me, the voting process is supposed to “let the minority have their say, and the majority have their way.” Except that when voters can choose only one option, the process inevitably sets up winners and losers. Like our law courts and our labour negotiations, it assumes an adversarial system. It does not, and it cannot, build unity.

Consensus models

Unfortunately, most people don’t realize that there are any alternatives. There is, in fact, a process that can unify rather than divide. It’s called consensus. Consensus is not just unanimity. Indeed, some organizations treat a unanimous decision as flawed, requiring reconsideration. The consensus model deliberately tries to identify, to draw out, and to pay attention to, contrary viewpoints. Then it provides voting options. Several congregations in the Okanagan Valley have practiced consensus decision-making for years. Here’s how it works, on a small scale. A proposed gets discussed. Sometimes it fades away. Other times, it moves towards a decision. But here’s the key. Members don’t just vote for or against. They vote their level of commitment.  One finger held up means enthusiastic support.  Two fingers means moderate support.  Three fingers indicates uncertainty, but not active opposition.  Four fingers means moderate opposition.  Five fingers means total opposition -- a veto. Yes, one person can “block” a whole proposal. In conventional voting, the majority would ride roughshod over the dissenter. In the consensus model, the group takes time to hear more clearly the objections, to consider their wisdom, perhaps to amend the original proposal. Or even to agree to defeat it. Often, having been heard, the five-finger blocker will move to reluctant acceptance. The result is always better than a straight majority vote, because it gathers commitment for action.

On larger scales Variations of that system work in larger settings too. According to Wikipedia, about half of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions are reached by some kind of consensus. The Nunavut legislature uses consensus. So, I understand, do several large Protestant churches -- such as the Society of Friends, the million-member United Church of Christ, and some Mennonite and Anabaptist denominations. In multi-candidate elections, preferential ballots allow a consensus of sorts -- the person eventually elected has support from at least a full majority of voters. Would it work everywhere? Probably not. Right now, I can’t see anything working in the U.S. Congress. But the consensus model tells me that there are alternatives to what many believe to be the only possible way of reaching decisions.

********************************************************
Copyright © 2016 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups encouraged; links from other blogs welcomed; all other rights reserved. To send comments, to subscribe, or to unsubscribe, write jimt@quixotic.ca
********************************************************

YOUR TURN
I had only three letters (whew!) in response to that massive mailing of letters about Gretta Vosper’s “Inquisition.”
One came from Ron Klusmeier: “Jim Taylor and I were close friends beginning back in the early 1970’s when he was on staff at The Observer. Our friendship was one which included candid conversations which permitted both of us to safely ‘vent’ using whatever language or imagery we wished, depending on the emotions of the moment. We were with each other through some of the very best and the very worst of times.
“We kind of lost track of each other in recent years. When a friend sent me his piece about Gretta Vosper, I wrote a personal note of gratitude to Jim. Being kind of out of the loop these days, I didn’t even know he was still writing. I was excited to learn a bit about what he was doing. “When I wrote to Jim at his personal email address, I used the kind of language and imagery that he and I would have shared in former days. I had no idea it was going anywhere beyond the two of us. Jim included some of the content of that message publicly with my name attached to it with the feedback he received concerning the Gretta Vesper item. It was an honest mistake and Jim has graciously apologized. “What I need to be clear about here is that I am not back-pedalling about the content of my message to Jim. I stand by that and feel that the church is making a terrible mistake concerning its relationship with Gretta. What I do wish to apologize for is the language and imagery that I assumed was confined to the eyes of two dear friends who have always enjoyed earthy conversations without boundaries. For those who I may have unintentionally offended, I am sorry.”

Ron may not have been the only person who intended his comments to be personal, but who then had those comments broadcast widely. To anyone else I may have hurt, my apologies. I tend to assume that since my columns are open to the public, that responses are also intended to be public. Obviously, that’s not always true. 

 Dale Perkins commented, “Reading your latest mailing (40 some entries!) was quite an opus and revealing. Obviously you struck a nerve in 'mother church' and it’s getting played out before us. I actually think it will only hasten the hemorrhaging happening inside the denomination, but apparently there are some who can't walk away from this one, and hope they can ride it out until a better day. I think they are delusional, but nobody is asking me.”

Ted Wilson was hopeful: “The range of opinions expressed in your latest offering indicates, to me at least, that your ‘Heresy trial’ column was very timely and is, hopefully, opening up some much needed discussion and soul searching. Any institution, process, or belief that remains unchanged eventually dies by becoming irrelevant. As I said in my last note, the only constant is change. I don’t know if that applies to God but I do know my understanding of Him/Her (is there a genderless word or these situations?) does. Ted quoted my line: “that doesn’t mean I don’t experience God. I am far more aware of God now than when I held traditional beliefs. God flows through all relationships, all experiences, all life, the way water permeates a sponge.” He continued: “It sounds like we share that experience. We don’t always have to agree. As long as we find God at our point of need, agreement isn’t important. As a matter of fact some disagreement is necessary for our Faith Journeys to continue. Those who cannot accept disagreement are the ones in trouble.”
********************************************
TECHNICAL STUFF
This column comes to you using the electronic facilities of Woodlakebooks.com.    If you want to comment on something, write me at jimt@quixotic.ca. Or just hit the “Reply” button.    To subscribe or unsubscribe, send me an e-mail message at the address above. Or subscribe electronically by sending a blank email (no message) to sharpedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca. Similarly, you can un-subscribe at sharpedgesunsubscribe@lists.quixotic.ca.    Unfortunately, the archived columns at http://edges.Canadahomepage.net have disappeared. The site was hijacked, and I haven’t been able to get it back I’m hoping to have a new website up fairly soon.    I write a second column each Wednesday, called Soft Edges, which deals somewhat more gently with issues of life and faith. To sign up for Soft Edges, write to me directly, at the address above, or send a blank e-mail to softedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca

PROMOTION STUFF…  Ralph Milton ’s latest project is called “Sing Hallelujah” -- the world’s first video hymnal. It consists of 100 popular hymns, both new and old, on five DVDs that can be played using a standard DVD player and TV screen, for use in congregations who lack skilled musicians to play piano or organ. More details at www.singhallelujah.com
Ralph’s HymnSight webpage is still up, http://www.hymnsight.ca, with a vast gallery of photos you can use to enhance the appearance of the visual images you project for liturgical use (prayers, responses, hymn verses, etc.)  Wayne Irwin's “Churchweb Canada,” an inexpensive service for any congregation wanting to develop a web presence, with free consultation. <http://www.churchwebcanada.ca>  Isabel Gibson’s thoughtful and well-written blog, www.traditionaliconoclast.com  Alva Wood’s satiric stories about incompetent bureaucrats and prejudiced attitudes in a small town -- not particularly religious, but fun; alvawood@gmail.com to get onto her mailing list.  Tom Watson writes a weekly blog called “The View from Grandpa Tom’s Balcony” -- ruminations on various subjects, and feedback from Tom’s readers. Write him at tomwatso@gmail.com or twatson@sentex.net
***************************************