Multiple proposals

To use any such processes within Loomio, we need to enable 2 stages of deliberation.

1. People write alternative proposals, which are then each discussed as usual in Loomio. In that discussion, people understand better the position of the proposers, while the proposers understand the needs and wishes of the others.

2. A vote is set up with a title explaining the problem. Each proposer adds an option, having changed their wording to take account of the problems others have with their proposal.

3. People rank the options to show which they like best, their second best that they will consent to, and so on.

4. The winning option is the one with the highest level of consent, measured by 1 point for the lowest ranked option, 2 for the second lowest an so on.

That is as close as we can get to establishing consent when there are multiple options.

An possible addition would be for the group to set a minimum threshold for agreement (e.g. 75% of the maximum possible count). Anything lower fails to get enough consent, so they go into another round of discussions, trying to come up with new ideas.

The same 2 stage process can also be used in rating systems. For non-contentious decisions, rating on multiple questions can produce clearly justified results. But for contentious issues, ranking forces people to think about the options that they instinctively reject, encouraging fully worked out type 2 thinking, rather than instant type 1 judgements.

The things is, there is no perfect voting method. Every single one has drawbacks and built-in skew. I think the way to go is not to act like any result is definitive, and instead emphasize that interpretation is necessary. Then people can useful conversations about the meaning of the outcomes.

Here is my design for a multi-faceted voting interface. You can drag the options to the position you want them, then submit your response. Combines ranked choice, approval, Condorcet, and straight majority wins voting. And if you include position statements that includes basic deliberation as well. If you present the results visually, participants can decide for themselves how to interpret them.

Alanna, I definitely like the idea of ongoing modifications to synthesise consensus. Ranking is merely a tool to find roughly where that consensus might be found.