Peter Emerson (Belfast, de Borda Institute): Most problems in life are multi-optional...if, that is, the question is asked correctly. Unfortunately, many politicians ask only closed, yes-or-no questions. Take, for example, the debate on Iraq in 2002. There were many possibilities: war, sanctions, inspections, and so on. On the table, however, there was only a single resolution, number 1441. This led to the crazy situation whereby France, for one, voted in favour of something it did not actually like. The outcome of that vote was therefore almost meaningless: because the question was phrased as a closed one.
In conflict resolution work, by contrast, professional mediators invariably rely on open questions. Parties to the dispute first propose possible solutions. After the necessary debate, they put these options into their order of preference. And the mediator then identifies that option which is most acceptable to all.
The same process can be achieved with a multi-option preference vote in committees, in parliaments, and even in national polls. The initial debate must be open: a public meeting, a sitting in the House, an official enquiry, or whatever; a (short) list of options is then drawn up to constantly reflect the debate; and, if there are still a number of options on the table when the debate has reached its natural conclusion (i.e., if the participants have failed to reach a verbal consensus) then all proceed to the vote, which must also be open, i.e., multi-optional. Preferences mean points; and the option with the most points is the winner.
The two-option, win-or-lose, majority vote is the most inaccurate measure of collective opinion ever invented. The above points system, however (technical name called the Modified Borda Count) is much more accurate, not least because the outcome is determined by all the preferences (or points) cast by all the voters. The winner, the option with the most points, is ipso facto the option with the highest average preference. And an average involves everybody, not just a majority.
This consensus voting helps produce an altogether different psychology. Each protagonist will still want their own option to win, of course, but, knowing the outcome depends upon literally everybody, it is worth their while talking to erstwhile opponents, to try and persuade them that the proposal is not as bad as they had originally thought. Consensus voting encourages dialogue.
Mathematically, if everyone states not just their 1st preference, but also their 2nd preference candidate - i.e., if everyone states their own compromise - then of course it will be possible to identify the collective common ground. Consensus voting promotes compromise.
Lastly, by casting a preference for all the options listed, and by giving a last preference to the option the voter likes least of all, then they, as it were, acknowledge the validity of that option. Furthermore, they are in effect saying that if the collective consensus supports this option, then they will accept that democratic decision. Consensus voting, in this way, can be the very catalyst of reconciliation.
