Reply to comment

This experiment highlighted the need for extensive, in-depth debate before decisions are made. Debate over something as fundamental as funding the electoral process should begin with debate about the principles we want the electoral process to reflect. This phase is likely to be lengthy, difficult, and unpopular, but it is essential if our genuine views - rooted in our philosophical and ethical assumptions - are to be expressed. Rigorous debate is a forging process for our own individual views, preparatory to decision-making.

Without such debate, I do not think the result can be held to represent in any meaningful way the participants’ views on electoral funding. It might be used as a demonstration model for a voting system, though it would be clearer if function were separated from content. To show a voting system at work, it is not necessary to vote about voting systems. The procedure could be shown just as well by a trivial problem, such as the design for an insurance broker’s window display.

{Ed. True. Consensus voting has been used in such easy cases. But, as noted in the comment above, it can also be used on complicated and/or controversial subjects. Suffice to say that one very distinctive feature of consensus voting is that the procedure allows the participants to participate, not only in casting their preferences, but also in choosing the options upon which they will cast their preferences. Which is why we chose a relatively complex topic. Peter Emerson.}