This topic came up in my European Union class a few days ago. I´ve pretty much only encountered democracies of majority rule, so I wonder what the benefits of consensus are. Is it practical on a nationwide scale? The only consenus-democracy that I´ve experienced that comes to my mind is a subgroup in my Intro to Theater class. The six of us had to develop and perform a short play, and initially I wasn´t comfortable with some elements. They refused to move forward with the plans until every person was in agreement.

I´ve heard that some of the governmental systems of Europe are based on a democracy of consensus. Any stories?

I've tried to collaborate with a group of people on a consensus basis, and it never worked beyond a small, small number. I mean, it sure would be nice if all the things we agreed on would finally get implemented, but what things DO we agree on?

Seems like America is more politically divided than it has been in years.

Consensus might be a good thing since nothing would get done, good or bad. We could just all chill out. :)

Joking aside though, I do not think consensus would work. People are too divided by nature.

One of my professors said that traditionally in group meetings in some other country, Sweden I think, they use consensus rather than voting. He said their motto is that you know you've reached a good agreement when everyon leaves unhappy.

The Co-ops at my college operated mainly by majority, but if someone strongly objected, they could veto. There were no limits to this veto power, but it was understood that it would be used sparingly. i can't say how well this method worked, but with the veto option it avoided anyone being extremely upset with the result of any change.

I don't think there's any form of government that implies a pure consensus democracy. The practical effects of the Dutch political system could be described as consensus-democracy with some good will.

http://www.nrc.nl/W2/Lab/Profiel/Netherlands/politics.html

That article is a bit dated, however (we've had some political crises here of late).

The only 'consensus-democracy' I've ever seen functioning is my church youth-hangout. There's a group of thirty people that have a key to the space. Those people share the responsibility for that place: from rule-making to cleaning to safety, etc.. Every week (or two) there's a meeting in which things are decided without voting. A subject (ie. closing times) is discussed until there are no more objections to the prevailing view.

Edited to add: http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_democracy

I forgot to mention: in the Slachtza (spelling?) of the 'Republic' of Poland in the seventeenth century, everyone had a veto (the famous 'Liberum Veto). It didn't function quite well.

Hmmm...I doubt consensus would be practical on a national scale, but in terms of benefiting the common individual, nations are highly impractical on a national scale.
I beleive consensus should be used wherever workable (perhaps on the level of smaller groups such as those in a factory making production decisions), and on larger levels, voluntary democracy should be employed.

ebola
np: neurosis

Darn, I should have made this a poll to see if we could all agree. ;)

Consensus works for the Raging Grannies.

Who are the Raging Grannies? A punk rock group, perhaps?

Who are the Raging Grannies? A punk rock group, perhaps?
For example, here's their Seattle chapter: http://www.raginggrannies.com/

...Granted, they're kind of an homogenous group...