this is a valid, interesting and exciting project.

however;

*consensus* means reaching a decision which everyone can live with/support/is happy with. consensus decision making requires a group purpose or aim in making this decision; if there are 'stand asides' to the decision, this is because they cannot support it, and indicate the group may have not achieved its aim. A 'block' to a decision is a way of saying: this decision does not follow from the aims of the group.

*voting* is majority rule. so i think this is a valid and interesting project, and i block it! because consensus voting is an oxymoron, and having the first open question outlaw challenging the party process itself (which is so directly linked to any response I have regarding funding) is so closed its boring.

{ Response: Majority voting is the basis of majority rule. But consensus
voting is not majority voting. Consensus voting, the Modified Borda
Count [MBC] or preferendum, is a voting procedure by which can be
identified that option which is most acceptable to all. Now when people
come to a verbal consensus, they have to go through a process of
give-and-take. In consensus voting, they do the same: the process is
also one of give-and-take: each expresses their preferences, so then we
identify that option which has the highest average preference. And an
average, by definition, involves everybody, not just a majority. But
please see the accompanying article. http://www.opendemocracy.net/deborda/articles/consensus_voting_and_conflict_resolution

Peter Emerson }

I've just posted a comment in a busy page. I didn't find the page very easy to work through - lots of clutter on the sides, confused by the dull/bright, big/small aspect. Not especially inuititive, I'd say.

 Great to be part of this experiment though! 

I'd just like to reinforce the point about legibility. We're trying to have quite a complex discussion where small distinctions may matter. And we seem to be doing it in 6 point charcoal type on a grey background. (Replies seem to be smaller, and in italics, which makes them barely visible, let along barely readable). Can the Open Democracy tech wizards do anything during the process to make the content more readable?

{Ed.  Fair point.  We'll see what we can do.

Peter Emerson (with apologies for the italics).} 

Dull/bright, big/small? What are they? How much time do you think busy people have to waste? It is because our politicians cannot focus compeletely on the issues that matter that we are in the state we are in. There is no place for niff naff and trivia in serious debate - particularly when this website requires cookies so reducing the security on my personal computer and wants pop-ups too ... and then has a spell checker (I am a thinker - not a typist) that deletes my text if I try to load it. It is just these sort of failings that make me tired of the politicians and bureaucrats of today.

(Ed.  Point taken.  We are reviewing whether or not they should be there at all.  Thanks for your comment.  Peter Emerson.}