Getting things done

Gathers to analyze and address the relations between systems at different levels: the systems that emerge among us as members of the occupation itself, local and regional systems, and large-scale systems (national or international, for instance). We are committed to developing workable proposals for concrete action at all three levels. Our conversations aim to link the movement's practical and theoretical concerns together in the service of collective and individual growth.

Getting things done

Postby JerryB » Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:01 pm

It is difficult to get things done because the consensus system is cumbersome and people are often resistant to take responsibility.

An alternative would be to:
1. Have a simple majority vote on whether something needs to be done.
2. If yes, and the problem is simple it might be possible to come up with a simple solution everyone can reach consensus on right away. If it is complex, or if there is disagreement on how to solve the problem, ask for volunteers to come up with three proposals. The three teams should cooperate to get the best ideas but there will usually be differences that not everyone can agree on, resulting in three different proposals.
3. Use preferential voting to determine the best proposal. Everyone would give three points for the proposal they like the most, two pts. for their second choice and one point for their least favorite proposal. The one with the most points wins.

This could be used on the micro level in camp (beans in three bowls to vote?).
It could be used at the regional level for things like the City Council, or in business.
It could be used on the State and National level. Eliminate the filibuster and have one Democratic proposal, one Republican, and one from a team of independent experts in the field being considered. If the independent team was required to be neutral, they could not receive any funding from special interests. This would minimize the influence of special interests because the independent proposal would usually win. It would insure what was best for the country instead of what was best for the party (or special interests) It would foster cooperation to get the best ideas in their plans.

If we started in the camp and perfected the method we could sell the city Council and other local governments, and then move on to State and National levels to change the political system so it actually got stuff done, instead of being locked in partisan gridlock.
JerryB
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:20 pm

Return to Systemic Change Working Group

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron