Three decision models and their trade-offs, when to vote formally, then how a proposal passes: voting, quorum, consensus in person and online, and conduct.
01Three decision models
Majority, consent, and consensus are the three models we draw on. Each fits a different kind of decision: majority for either/or choices and indecision, consent for reversible working decisions, and consensus for the choices that define the organization.
02Inside a circle
03A continuum of decisions
Not every decision needs a formal vote. The more people a choice affects, and the harder it is to reverse, the more collectively it should be decided. This diagram comes from post-office, who aligns with us in terms of how we scope decisions.
04Formal Vote Scoping
Within solid co-ops, you don’t have to vote super formally on every little thing.
Over time, different folks learn to make a social habit out of “checking in” for consent and consensus on things, and this can be as simple as dropping a question in a message board post or a group chat (in practice). But the more formal voting procedures are really helpful whenever big, org-defining questions come up or are being discussed. For this, please see below for Democratic Voting Models.
05Consensus voting
Under consensus voting, in order for a proposal to pass, no member present can vote against it. If any member does vote against the proposal, it will be reworked by the member or circle that originated the proposal, taking into account the concerns regarding the proposal. If the proposal is brought back to membership for a vote two more times, and only one person is still against it, the proposal can pass with a “consensus minus one” vote.
If members are uncomfortable passing a proposal and cast dissenting votes, the proposal will not pass. Instead of killing the proposal, its author must meet with the dissenters to figure out a way to change the proposal so that it will not be detrimental to the organization before going back to another vote.
The consensus decision-making process is designed to empower members, encourage compromise and collaboration, strengthen our cooperative culture, and deepen our commitment to each other by thoroughly dealing with all concerns.
For more information, please check out “On Conflict and Consensus: A Guide To Formal Consensus” and Wikipedia’s ”Consensus Decision-Making” page.
06Ways of Voting
Full Support: Used when the voting member completely supports the proposal. This is an approval vote.
Reservations: Used when the voting member is mostly in support of the proposal, but thinks there could be some improvements. This is an approval vote. Stated reservations will be recorded in the meeting minutes.
Stand Aside: Used when the voting member has serious concerns with the proposal or has a conflict of interest regarding the proposal, but does not want to stop others from going ahead with it. This is an approval vote. Stated reasons for standing aside will be recorded in the meeting minutes.
Dissent: Used when the voting member thinks that passing the proposal would be detrimental to the org. This is not an approval vote. Stated reasons for dissenting will be recorded in the meeting minutes.
Proxy: Members who are not present may cast a written vote prior to the member meeting only for Board of Directors elections.* All proposed decisions will honor the right of non-present members and trial members to be heard with a written statement and their non-binding vote read aloud during discussion. These proxies are not counted as part of quorum or as an official vote.
*A Board of Directors is required to function as a legal entity, but will not impact the democratic procedures of 400M as a cooperative or federation. Its membership will be delegated by Worker-Members and will not extend an individual’s decision-making ability over other Worker-Members or Creative-Members when collaborating on projects.
07Methods for Reaching Consensus
Consensus can be reached via two approaches, depending on the kind of proposal. In both approaches, quorum — the number of members needed in order for a vote to take place — is a majority. If the proposal is brought back to membership for a vote two more times (for a total of three voting rounds), and only one person is still against it, the proposal can pass with a “consensus minus one” vote. Members can choose to alternate these approaches between rounds of voting if needed. These methods are:
Members meet in person or via call to decide on a proposal after a designated review period. After discussing the proposal, all members present test for consensus. Changes to the proposal can be made in the same meeting, or a new meeting can be scheduled in the event more time is needed due to the scope and significance of the changes.
Face-to-Face Consensus is most helpful when a proposal involves deeper engagement from multiple members or circles. Due to its approach, F2F is able to have less rigid guidelines around the procedures, allowing members to discuss changes and adapt to situations without the issues that arise from asynchronous digital discussions.
Members review a proposal, suggest changes, and cast votes digitally. Digital Consensus is primarily used when members need to agree on long-form, written documents (e.g., legal or operational docs). This allows members to take their time in a voting window to read documents and asynchronously suggest changes to other members before voting.
This process goes as follows:
If members need more time during the review or voting window, they can be extended to accommodate the needs of its members. This must be done 24 hours before a proposed voting period ends.
08Making Changes During Digital Consensus
All suggested changes proposed by members must be formatted correctly to allow for members to understand suggested changes during the review stage and facilitate the process of synthesis. A list of suggested changes can be made by commenting at the bottom of a proposal post. Please format these changes by quoting the original text and a highlight for any changes you wish to make to the text. For clarity, it is important to always feature the original text alongside any copy edits when suggesting changes to a document.
Example:
The text that a member wishes to change.
The member’s proposed change to the text.
To suggest additional text for a document, please clarify where in the document the text would be added.
If members agree on the changes being presented in the comment section of a proposal, they can express their agreement by comment or by giving the original comment a thumbs up (👍).
09Multiple Rounds of Consensus
If F2F Consensus is not reached, another vote can be initiated in the initial meeting or in a separate meeting depending on the changes being made and the time needed to review. These timeframes can be decided in the meetings by the participating members themselves.
For Digital Consensus around documents that need time for changes to be made, the dissenting member(s) must propose a time when they will be able to present their proposed changes, after which a new voting window can begin. This new voting window should not be longer than the initial voting window.
10Voting Conduct
When and how we choose to vote can have a significant impact on organizational processes, depending on the subject of the proposal at hand. How we relate to the dynamics of a proposal can either facilitate or hinder collective operations.
Below, we have outlined some examples of tendencies we would like to avoid in service to a smoother democratic process for everyone, in addition to tendencies we hope to see.
Conduct around voting periods typically goes one of a few ways for individuals:
In these cases, we want to avoid conduct two and three.
Regarding Number Two:
Voting windows are established to give people ample time for review. Those who do not utilize these windows but who attempt to vote at the last minute are not putting their best, most thought-out vote forward. And those who attempt to propose changes at the last minute extend wait times for everyone, subsequently pushing back operations in some cases. (This can also inconvenience or create more work for people who do not have the time or energy to revise proposals outside of specific windows.) Please utilize the time provided in the initial (accepted) voting window to thoroughly review and reflect on proposals.
Regarding Number Three:
“You can’t have a say if you don’t show up.” This is a common refrain we hear from politicians regarding the dimensions of “representative democracy.” But what we have here is an effort toward direct democracy, and in a direct democracy — where individuals claim to want a say over matters that directly impact them — not showing up on a vote that has met quorum means direct forfeiture of your say (at least for a time). Quorum for our voting processes is a majority of members, so if a minority of individuals do not vote, and consensus has been reached among those who did vote, the proposal goes through anyways. Thus, we ask that in service to the democratic integrity of our culture and processes as an organization, all members show up to have a say. Most of us became involved with 400M because we believed we didn’t need people to decide certain things for us — we show an earnest belief in this notion by showing up for ourselves and each other in the democratic process.