Decision making threshold

100% means finding a solution until every single person is happy, satisfied and their belief is met. This type of would take an immense long time to negotiate. Hence, 100% agreement seems like an impossible task to achieve and perhaps discouraging to the majority. It is also against the 80/20 rule which can be applied to so many different things. E.g. 80% of work is required to achieve the last 20% and make it perfect, 80% of input comes from 20% of people.

Also, to me 50/50 or 51/49 % is too low. It would leave 50% of participants unheard. That means that we have not deliberated and educated enough. So I propose to find a place somewhere between 60% and 80%.

Also, I know that this is not exactly how things are done on Loomio. It might be worth a try. There is a communications process known as Deep Democracy Process which gives a voice to majority and minority groups and looks at topics by seeking agreement/disagreement for each statement.
In this context people may not agree to a full proposal, but you may agree to parts of it. So what we could do is pull a proposal apart and present it in stages. This way we can see where the agreement /disagreement might be, have further discussion feeding into amendments.

I agree it should be a clear majority.
and in response to the deep democracy concept, I like the idea, can perhaps demonstrate how it would work with this thread?

for example, how would we use that system to discuss this topic

A majority rule is dependant on the amount of options available; if there are 3 options then the majority may well be below 50%. I would also note that the percentage is pretty much irrelevant, because nothing will get done at all if you do not accept the highest percentage.

Another thing I will add is there would have to be guidelines that keep an action within a window of morality and practicality, majority rule by nature will be disproportionate to minorities and favourable to pleasure seeking indulgences, that is the inherent flaw of direct Democracy so it requires some kind of peer reviewable process to determine the necessity and fairness of the decision.

Personally I think the Republic should be a mechanism that appoints leading experts from the fields relevant to each issue, those leaders would be appointed a legal team to advocate their findings, discuss, debate and negotiate a settlement with the experts from other fields relevant to the issue, or together at least set a window of morality and practicality that the People and the Economy can agree to action deals within.

Other than that, I think each issue should host a social media network forum, where all citizens can acquire information on the issue and contribute to the discussion. This would mean that potentially anyone could contribute to the final decision if their ideas stand up to the process.

As for elections; I think the People should elect watchdogs to investigate the process and the experts, to make sure that nothing is being corrupted by outside influences or interests.

personally i think as long as we retain a parliament, we are doomed to be in this same place.
the 400 year old westminster system is designed by people who want to maintain power over the masses.
it has not changed in that time because we are constantly reinforced with its ideas of "freedom" while systematically being robbed of freedom and wealth.
adding watchdogs is just another expense and power structure to add to that complexity.

i still stand by the development of small direct democratic communities, interconnected to share services and wealth.

however this is not the thread to discuss that, what this post was supposed to aim at was an internal group threshold for our own decision making, not state or governance.

as a group, when WE are making decisions here in loomio, what is our point of acceptance?

It looks like we cannot get the momentum going here. Which is unfortunate.

its the same issue i have with DDR, people want to talk, but dont want to actually go off facebook to do so.

hmmm

I have just read your article Claudia and joined up straight away as I have been interested in designing and creating desired futures as they rarely evolve naturally, especially in today's political environment.

You could eliminate options by voting on all proposals and the one with lowest vote drops out each time until only 2 remain. Vote again on the 2 remaining proposals and the one with the highest number of votes wins. It might be a bit cumbersome but it will be more representative.

You may also want to consider using the 'search conference' method started by the Emery's back in the late 1950s and still being used today to design and create a shared vision of the future.

Thanks Bill. That seems a really good idea. In some form or another we need to identify why the minority is not participating and integrate this into proposals as well. Otherwise it might be possible that less and less people actually vote for the last 2 proposals. What do you think?

i would say its mostly apathy. those of us on facebook see it alot, people want their opinion heard, but dont want to actually go anywhere to do it.

there is another loomio group i am a part of (well several actually) that has some really good conversation happening right now specifically in regard to direct democracy on a global view.

i recommend as an aside to come along there and join in, you may be able to use it to gather ideas and people for our own movement, or become part of thart one

https://www.loomio.org/g/GRQl4yUT/global-direct-democracy-working-group ( https://www.loomio.org/g/GRQl4yUT/global-direct-democracy-working-group )