Seems to me that consensus is the ultimate goal. If the voting threshold is majority (50% + 1), then half the representatives, and if actually representative, half the people can adopt a law. Like you said, this is a worst case scenario, but it seems to me that with all the effort going into this, the outcome should be guaranteed to be one that most people are happy with. I realize that the structure you’re proposing is conducive to better legislating, but this last step I think needs to be really thought out carefully to come to as close as possible to consensus. Only then will the whole process be accepted as a superior way to legislate. I believe there are things we can come to consensus on, but instilling this desire for consensus is the holy grail of effective governing in my mind. Right now, the incentive is to dominate by fixing the system to your advantage. Certainly not democratic!
The problem with demanding consensus (or near consensus) is the bias it maintains towards existing power and status quo arrangements. If society were already in a state of harmony, balance, and justice... a change in law might be justifiably demand a super-majority. But privileging current unequal power by demanding consensus to change things is unjust and undemocratic.
Seems to me that consensus is the ultimate goal. If the voting threshold is majority (50% + 1), then half the representatives, and if actually representative, half the people can adopt a law. Like you said, this is a worst case scenario, but it seems to me that with all the effort going into this, the outcome should be guaranteed to be one that most people are happy with. I realize that the structure you’re proposing is conducive to better legislating, but this last step I think needs to be really thought out carefully to come to as close as possible to consensus. Only then will the whole process be accepted as a superior way to legislate. I believe there are things we can come to consensus on, but instilling this desire for consensus is the holy grail of effective governing in my mind. Right now, the incentive is to dominate by fixing the system to your advantage. Certainly not democratic!
The problem with demanding consensus (or near consensus) is the bias it maintains towards existing power and status quo arrangements. If society were already in a state of harmony, balance, and justice... a change in law might be justifiably demand a super-majority. But privileging current unequal power by demanding consensus to change things is unjust and undemocratic.
I saw this phenomenon in action frequently on our local school board. “Don’t rock the boat. Maintain stability at all costs.”
Very damaging.