Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

A comparison of consensus and voting in public decision making

  • 3 Accesses

Conclusion

As much as consensus decision making may be in vogue, as much as it may feel like an appropriate and progressive form of civil discourse, it is not without its problems and it may not always be the best avenue to pursue.

Policymaking about community problems requires all the creativity we can bring to the task. One of the areas where we might best apply our creativity is in the continual search for improved models of civil discourse and decision making. Consensus-based approaches hold great promise for addressing thorny issues like dispersed public housing, but we need to remember that such methods are relatively new to most of us, and that we are still feeling our way with them.

These cautionary comments, however, should not be embraced by public officials as excuses for keeping citizens out of public policy setting. Governments work best ultimately where there is broad consensus for their policies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Avery, M., B. Auvine, B. Streibel, and L. Weiss. 1981. Building united judgement —A handbook for consensus decision making. Madison, Wis.: The Center for Conflict Resolution.

  2. Berger, P.L. and T. Luckmann, 1967.The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

  3. Connor, D. M. 1992. Public participation and consensus building.Constructive Citizen Participation 20 (2):1.

  4. Dorius, N. 1993. Land use negotiation: Reducing conflict and creating wanted land uses.Journal of the American Planning Association 59 (1):101–106.

  5. Fulton, W. 1989.Reaching consensus in land-use negotiations. Planning Advisory Service Report Number 417. Chicago: American Planning Association.

  6. Godschalk, D. R. 1992. Negotiating intergovernmental development policy conflicts.Journal of the American Planning Association 58 (3):368–378.

  7. Goffman, I. 1959.The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday Anchor.

  8. Gray, B. 1989.Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  9. Iannello, K.P. 1992.Decisions without hierarchy: Feminist interventions in organization theory and practice. New York: Routledge.

  10. Innes, J. E. 1992. Group processes and the social construction of growth management: Florida, Vermont, and New Jersey.Journal of the American Planning Association 58 (4):440–453.

  11. Jones, B. 1990. Community problem solving around homelessness: The social construction of consensus.Jounal of the Community Development Society 21 (2):36–54.

  12. King, G. S. 1988. Newark and the new civics.National Civic Review 77 (4):350–354.

  13. McAdoo, B., and L. Bakken. 1990. Local government use of mediation for resolution of public disputes.The Urban Lawyer 22 (2):179–195.

  14. Netter, E. M. 1992. Using mediation to resolve land use disputes.Zoning and Planning Law Report 15 (4):25–32.

  15. Potapchuk, W. R. 1988. Building forums for cooperative resolution of community disputes.National Civic Review 77 (4):342–349.

  16. —— —— ——. 1991). New approaches to citizen participation: Building consent.National Civic Review 80 (2):158–168.

  17. Robinson, M.P. 1993. Mediation roundtables as a means of alternate environmental dispute resolution: The recent Northwest Territories and Hawaiian experience. Paper presented at the 6th Canadian Institute of Resources Law Conference on Natural Resources Law, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, May.

  18. Seebaren, R. 1990. A consensus and community-building approach to community development training. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Community Development Society, Little Rock, Arkansas, July 23–26.

  19. Stewart, A. 1988. Consensus: The key to collaboration.National Civic Review 77(4):354–360.

  20. Strauss, A. 1978.Negotiations: Varieties, contexts, processes, and social order. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  21. Susskind, L. and J. Cruikshank. 1987.Breaking the impasse: Consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. New York: Basic Books.

  22. Ury, W. L., and R. Smoke. 1985. Anatomy of a crisis.Negotiation Journal 1:(1):93–100.

  23. Van Nostrand, C. 1993.Gender-responsible leadership: Detecting bias, implementing interventions. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.

Download references

Additional information

Bernie Jones is associate director for university resources in the Colorado Center for Community Development at the University of Colorado at Denver, where he also holds an appointment as associate professor of urban and regional planning. His mailing address is Campus Box 128, University of Colorado at Denver, P.O. Box 173364, Denver, Colo. 80217-3364.

About this article

Cite this article

Jones, B. A comparison of consensus and voting in public decision making. Negot J 10, 161–171 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02184175

Download citation