Tue, 19 Dec 2023 07:36:56 +0000 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/ Lussumo Vanilla 1.0.3 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224168#Comment_224168 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224168#Comment_224168 Mon, 11 May 2015 10:46:56 +0100 SteamyTea Mentioned about it earlier on. It enters into Game Theory.

There is also the problem that you can be governed by a 'second choice'.
So it would be possible, and this is just a scenario, that the Liberals would govern the country because they got the lions share of the second place vote.

It really comes down why you vote. Ideally you want to be governed by a party that can pay for what we want. This was Labours undoing. As Bill Clinton said, "It is the economy stupid"]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224169#Comment_224169 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224169#Comment_224169 Mon, 11 May 2015 10:55:43 +0100 fostertom Posted By: jamesingramI think rather than disagreement, compromise is what could happen
Thats how we all function on a daily basis.Those that don't end up isolated.
That's not quite right -
'Compromise' is a miserable option which means everyone gets less than they hoped and the result is a disfunctional hotch-potch.

'Consensus' (or in terms familiar to designers, 'Synthesis') is the prize, once we drop this un-natural institutionalisation of Adversarial 'I win, you lose' fight, in which all lies and slanders are legit.
Consensus/Synthesis means that outcomes are found which miraculously serve almost everyone, in ways unforeseen by any 'party', until it emerges. That is the opposite of Compromise, which is just Adversarial with teeth pulled.

Adversarial is not 'Human Nature' - it's the systematic denial of human nature.
Adversarial is not 'The Law of the Jungle' - Survival of The Fittest. The jungle is an eco-system and the law of the eco-system is Survival of Those that Fit In.
Adversarial is not Democracy in the ancient Greek understanding of the word - which was Consensus - albeit only amongst the elite males.

Consensus has been the human way for 97.5% of human history. Hunter Gatherer ways of Consensus are obviously not viable in the modern world, since the agricultural revolution.
Now at last there's wide recognition and much work and experimentation to find new consensual ways of governance.

It's not true that Consensus is naive, Adversarial is the naked default, and 'Democracy with Forced Compromise' is the only way to slightly soften the misery it creates and the vested interests it serves.

PR is just chrome plating the turd.]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224171#Comment_224171 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224171#Comment_224171 Mon, 11 May 2015 11:02:51 +0100 SteamyTea
Isn't consensus/other terms to mean the same, just the lowest common denominator?

So how would we vote on this simple scenario:

We must reduce carbon emissions, so we will install 150,000 large windturbines at a delivered energy cost to the consumer of 26p/kWh, are we all happy with that?]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224173#Comment_224173 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224173#Comment_224173 Mon, 11 May 2015 11:08:23 +0100 fostertom Posted By: SteamyTeaIsn't consensus/other terms to mean the same, just the lowest common denominator?
Yes - so let's settle for no less than Consensus. Forget PR, just another well to pour our water down, so we remain entranced.]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224174#Comment_224174 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224174#Comment_224174 Mon, 11 May 2015 11:17:25 +0100 scrimper
My question is about the importance of my vote. Our democratic system seems to promise that each and every vote is as important as the next ... and that my one vote can make a difference. The premise is that perhaps there are exactly 9,849 votes for Labour, and 9,849 for the Liberal Democrats, and my one vote for either of them could sway the result. But my feeling is that it is actually the returning officer, who 'counts' the spoilt or inconclusive ballot papers, who really has the balance of power in this situation. There will be 100's of such papers, a lot of them not at all clear-cut, and it is via his subjective view on these multiple incidents (just like the hanging chards in the 2000 US election) that the result will actually be decided.

So (not wanting to sound Russell Brand'ish here!) in a sense my vote is actually - logically - irrelevant. Only in a situation where there wasn't a single inconclusive vote cast might it have any decisive sway ... and under our current medieval system of voting with primitive marks on bits of paper there is almost always going to have to be some subjective angle to it ...

Anyone else felt this sort of strange sense of frustration?]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224175#Comment_224175 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224175#Comment_224175 Mon, 11 May 2015 11:18:42 +0100 djh Posted By: fostertomYes - so let's settle for no less than Consensus.
Can you name one society that has used, or ideally still uses, Consensus with the population sizes we now have? It's bad enough trying to get consensus in a committee of a few dozen people, in my experience!]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224176#Comment_224176 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224176#Comment_224176 Mon, 11 May 2015 11:21:07 +0100 djh Posted By: SteamyTeaThere is also the problem that you can be governed by a 'second choice'.
So it would be possible, and this is just a scenario, that the Liberals would govern the country because they got the lions share of the second place vote.
That's not a problem though, is it? For that to happen there must be fundamental disagreements in the first choices (half communist and half fascist?) but everybody can stomach the liberals (or whoever).]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224177#Comment_224177 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224177#Comment_224177 Mon, 11 May 2015 11:35:49 +0100 fostertom Posted By: djhCan you name one society that has used, or ideally still uses, Consensus with the population sizes we now have?Prob not, early days yet, if you mean nations or other civil units - but lots of people are working on it.
Many 'societies' meaning organisations, incl ones with disparate constituencies and strong egos, do succesfully use consensus methods - don't ask me to name them - I spend too much time on this frippery as it is!
These are the test beds for new forms of governance, without which the same-old ultimate seats of power will remain succesfully adaptive.]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224179#Comment_224179 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224179#Comment_224179 Mon, 11 May 2015 13:05:13 +0100 bella
The SNP brought out their voting public by having a clever leader and deputy who were crystal clear about what they wanted. UKIP similarly despite some unsavoury supporters who shouted their mouths off. The Greens were clear (and Caroline Lucas is competant and clever) but on the "far side"! The Lib Dems only became clear a month or two before the election having failed to rebel to bring down the government on those "fairness" and "green" issues that they claimed to be so devoted to. They had committed political suicide long before the election campaign. Labour was almost silent politically for four years as they worked on what? As it turned out a silly list of statements - on a stone. The public looked on as Miliband garbled his messages and joined enthusiastically in that ghastly parliamentary Yahboo with Cameron every week. Both men started the run up to the election with a public holding them in contempt - but the Tories were the government, well supported by money and the press, the sky hadn't fallen in over the previous five years, the Lib Dems were over and Labour had failed to layout clear principles and intent.

Even so the Polls in the run up to the election showed Labour and Tory neck and neck in the opinion of the public - so no overwhelming support for right wing policies or rejection of the left. But polls draw on a different population to the population that actually votes. Of that population more considered that Milliband and Co had shown themselves potentially less competant than Cameron and the Tories. I shudder, but despite my left and green-leaning view of the world, I think they had a point. Would PR bring in more Sturgeons, Lucas's and Farages (competant party leaders whatever you think of their policies)? Would Tories, Labour and Lib Dems split into smaller new parties? What effect would this have? What if UKIP and the Tory right merged? A cliche about devils comes to mind.]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224181#Comment_224181 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224181#Comment_224181 Mon, 11 May 2015 14:01:24 +0100 fostertom Posted By: bellawe need to be less esotericmaybe, in the short run, to work the bankrupt system for as long as it can stave off implosion.

But what is to succeed Adversarial western 'Democracy' and all the other mutual-confirmatory manifestations of obsolete Cartesian/Darwinian delusion?

No one, during a Chaos-theory Decision Window (such as we presently inhabit) can predict/determine what will arise from the impending Chaos Point - breakdown or breakthrough? - but we can consciously, richly create the kind of obscure factors which will prove decisive.

Is that esoteric?]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224186#Comment_224186 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224186#Comment_224186 Mon, 11 May 2015 14:36:56 +0100 snyggapa
My assessment of what is good for the country does not in any way match with what is good for the planet - but as it stood I valued continuity over yet another idealogical change. In fact, there are policies from probably every party that I think are sensible and policies that are just plain loopy. I'd prefer a pick'n'mix approach to politics, but I can imagine that is never going to happen. A referendum on every policy - what could possibly go wrong...]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224188#Comment_224188 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224188#Comment_224188 Mon, 11 May 2015 16:08:41 +0100 jamesingram You could say compromise leads to consensus
I guess I struggle with the concept of universal truth, I'm more the pragmatic cat skinner

Western democracy systems are always going to be a slight fudge,
by the way you cant polish a turd , but you can roll it in glitter

PR is design to improve representation of views, governments can work on compromise/consensus
but then I believe the middle ground to be probably the best route forward

"Is that esoteric?" you're the GBF master in that area ]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224193#Comment_224193 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224193#Comment_224193 Mon, 11 May 2015 17:15:41 +0100 fostertom http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224247#Comment_224247 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224247#Comment_224247 Tue, 12 May 2015 14:07:01 +0100 wookey My question is about the importance of my vote. Our democratic system seems to promise that each and every vote is as important as the next ... and that my one vote can make a difference.

Only in a situation where there wasn't a single inconclusive vote cast might it have any decisive sway ...

Anyone else felt this sort of strange sense of frustration?

No, I think that's nonsense. Your vote isn't 'decisive' - it's just as important or unimportant as all the others - they get counted and added up. The majority wins. No one vote is the one that won. The fact that some are invalid is just that: some are invalid. That doesn't favour any particular group.

You seem to be thinking about this in a very odd way.

-----

I voted Green.

Their nuclear policy is unscientific nonsense, and IMHO self-defeating, their animal rights stuff is mostly irrelevant bollocks, and some of the economics stuff, whilst very interesting, and clearly right-thinking, is not at all convincing in terms of actually being workable (I've always liked their national income idea, which has not changed in 30 years, but a lot of the rest is way too 'left wing' for me, or at least was certainly presented that way at this election).

But they are the only party that takes sustainability in general and climate change in particular seriously, which at this stage is an overriding consideration IMHO. It was nice to see them not being entirely ignored this time round, but on the other hand it's pretty depressing that they get 1/3rd of the vote of the UKIP climate-deniers.

BTW if you want some thoughtful input on what 'sustainable growth' might look like you should listen to Tim Jackson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ3Rnfg8oUE

-----

Oh and finally, up-thread people were dissing labout somewhat. Now I have never voted labour and hate their attitude to privacy and big-govt snooping (worse that the conservatives!), but they did do a couple of excellent things whilst in govt - the climate change act and zero-carbon housing by 2016 (and Cycling England was doing a great job too). That showed real signs that they actually understood part of the problem. Unfortunately the latter item has been laughably watered down in the meantime to the extent that I'm not sure it's going to make any practical difference. Huge opportunity wasted, and in the meantime the Irish are taking steps towards mandatory passivhaus for new developments. Now wouldn't that be nice here?]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224324#Comment_224324 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224324#Comment_224324 Wed, 13 May 2015 11:26:54 +0100 fostertom Posted By: jamesingramI'm no etymologist but I don't think I have the same problem with the word compromise, I don't see it as a negative
You could say compromise leads to consensusYou do acknowledge that there's a difference between kinds of outcome that can arise from competing demands:

a) a miserable option which means everyone gets less than they hoped and the result is a disfunctional hotch-potch

b) outcomes are found which miraculously serve almost everyone, in ways unforeseen by any 'party', until it emerges

What word would you use for each of these? If in your book both 'comprise' and 'consensus' equal b), what would you call a)?]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224333#Comment_224333 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224333#Comment_224333 Wed, 13 May 2015 12:47:36 +0100 marktime http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224336#Comment_224336 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224336#Comment_224336 Wed, 13 May 2015 13:22:27 +0100 djh
But (a) and (b) are exceptional cases. In the vast majority of situations there is no miracle solution and some or all people have to sacrifice something to find a solution. As long as everybody recognizes that a solution needs to be found, that it will involve sacrifices, and they are content with the distribution of the sacrifices then it's probably a successful compromise and if you're very lucky everybody might agree to it when directly faced with it. Then its called consensus and it's usually quite difficult to reach consensus in large groups because there are disagreements about how the sacrifices are shared. So we have systems of delegated authority to resolve questions with fewer people who have been chosen for their suitability for the role, in order to avoid conflicts with every decision. The systems are called managements, committees, democracies, dictatorships or whatever according to how the authorities are selected.]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224339#Comment_224339 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224339#Comment_224339 Wed, 13 May 2015 14:42:21 +0100 fostertom
Actually I don't do the former at all, so can't speak from personal experience, just witness the 'miserable' results everywhere.
As a designer, 'consensus' aka 'synthesis' is an everyday, miraculous reality.

Anyone else aware of the huge difference between the two?]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224340#Comment_224340 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224340#Comment_224340 Wed, 13 May 2015 15:06:58 +0100 djh http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224341#Comment_224341 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224341#Comment_224341 Wed, 13 May 2015 15:16:19 +0100 GarethC ]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224342#Comment_224342 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224342#Comment_224342 Wed, 13 May 2015 15:35:20 +0100 fostertom Posted By: djhan excellent example of how difficult it can be to reach consensusWe're not consiously applying any of the techniques that are being developed to make consensus practicable on a modern large-scale governance level (let alone at small-group level).

There are specific ways of doing it, which don't look like everyday common practice - for an early-days/primitive/pioneering but familiar example, see Christopher Day's Consensus Design
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Consensus-Design-Socially-Inclusive-Process/dp/0750656050/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1431527508&sr=1-1&keywords=consensus+design
and IMHO experimentation towards consensual governance is the most important thing that the Transition movement is doing, without which all previous 'revolutions' eventually fall into the same-old power-patterns.]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224343#Comment_224343 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224343#Comment_224343 Wed, 13 May 2015 16:06:52 +0100 djh http://197.14.51.10:81/pmb/ARCHITECTURE/consensus%20design.pdf]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224344#Comment_224344 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224344#Comment_224344 Wed, 13 May 2015 16:12:50 +0100 fostertom http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224347#Comment_224347 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13342&Focus=224347#Comment_224347 Wed, 13 May 2015 16:43:38 +0100 SteamyTea Posted By: SteamyTeaWe must reduce carbon emissions, so we will install 150,000 large windturbines at a delivered energy cost to the consumer of 26p/kWh, are we all happy with that?The vote is now closed, voter apathy wins.]]>