Influence

Most democratic organizations have a one-member, one-vote political process. Consensus could follow this popular mechanism. But I would like to remind readers that Consensus is building something truly innovative with its co-operative approach and its low ring / high ring / advisor system of governance. We should consider a different mechanism to enhance the quality of elections and voting decisions. I have called this “Influence” and will continue to capitalize this word.

Imagine that you have spent 10 years with Consensus. You joined Consensus at a time when it was not popular. You have seen Consensus face challenges and evolve. You have served a couple of years in the low ring. You have kept your profile active, gaining at least 20 supporters each year. Imagine a new member joins Consensus, and it is time to vote for the low ring. Is it really right that this new member, with no history of contributing much to Consensus, has the same voting strength in Consensus as you have?

Imagine that you have brought many people into Consensus. You have garnered 550 supporters. By making relevant posts, very few of your supporters ever “de-support” you. In essence, you are making Consensus a great place for other people. Imagine another Consensus member who joined at the same as you. This member has only 8 supporters and is not very active. Is it really right that you have the same voting strength in Consensus as this new member?

If you answered “no” to the previous two questions, you are sensing that more Influence in Consensus should belong to those members who have a larger personal investment. In the next webpage, I will introduce a mathematical formula that determines the degree of Influence each Consensus member should have.