The agenda will then consist of those items with the most points, with time allocations for each item determined in direct proportion to the number of points received.
We would then perhaps rely on the Modified Borda Count (MBC) as our voting methodology. This allows a number of people to come together and allocate each agenda item with a certain “consensus coefficient” (CC).
This method was devised in 1770 by Jean-Charles de Borda and based on the Borda Count BC first suggested (though not then named) in 1433 by Nicholas Cusanus.
The consensus coefficient of Item A (CCA) is defined as: CCA = Item A’s MBC score / the maximum possible MBC score.
The Rules
In proposing a draft resolution, its mover shall be allocated a fixed number of minutes. Anyone who wishes to change any part of the draft shall submit an amendment which shall then be displayed.
When proposing an amendment, the said speaker shall be limited to three minutes, and then the draft proposer may respond by accepting, considering, compositing with the original or rejecting this amendment. But nothing shall be changed if the original proposer does not agree to such a change.
THE DEBATE
Stage One
In debating any one item, the assembly shall first be presented with various experts’ overviews. Next, the chair will allow all concerned to draft a resolution.
Each set of authors will hope their resolution will be accepted. Therefore, many authors will feel incentivised to cooperate.
Let’s imagine that 40 drafts have been proposed. The attendants will debate each draft in turn. Any individual may move to amend the draft proposition, including asking for it to be merged with another similar draft. An amendment or even a deletion may be proposed later in the process, but accepted only if the original proposer agrees.
Stage Two
When we reach stage two we may still have about 20 proposals. The chair can ask all concerned to cast their preferences on, say, six of these 20, according to the MBC methodology. The top half-a-dozen or so of those drafts with the highest CC scores will then be debated further.
Progress
Accordingly, as the debate proceeds, the number of drafts ‘on the table’ will vary. If it all boils down to just one draft, this may be taken as the verbal consensus. If not, the chair will ask for a final vote in which all concerned shall cast their preferences on a ballot, usually of four-to-six drafts.
If there are five draft resolutions on the final ballot paper, then, in theory, assuming everyone casts all five of their preferences: the maximum score possible is 100 first preference votes, or a CC score of 1.00. The minimum would be 100 fifth preference votes, which gives a score of 0.20.
The chance of a five-way dead-heat, with all five draft resolutions on 0.60, is minimal. Some will be more popular and others less. Furthermore, if two of them are neck-and-neck, the chair may ask the relevant proposers to produce a composite.
If the number of participants is sufficiently high, the sortition adequately inclusive, and the winning draft’s CC score is less than 0.65, then there is no consensus. In this case, the chair will resume the debate.
If, however, the winning draft CC is 0.75, then the outcome is the best possible compromise and shall be advisory. Indeed, if the CC is more than 0.85 the result is a consensus and the proposal would be recommended or even obligatory as a resolution to be discussed at the following COP.
Conclusion
No majority has the right to dominate in consensus voting, and no minority the right of veto. Instead, all should be obligated to come to a collective decision.
At best, all may participate to identify the draft proposal with the highest average preference, and an average, of course, involves every participant. The MBC is inclusive – and uniquely so.
This Author
Peter Emerson is the director, the de Borda Institute.
