Step 3 – Solution formation

Figure 13-5

After Step 2 received sufficient assessments and participation for all questions, the Federal Council would release Step 3. In Step 3, the Federal Council would develop one or more solutions from which participants would select the consensus solution.

Part A. Generate possible solutions

The Federal Council and staff would review the consensus statements and groups from each question in Steps 1 and 2. The council and staff would then use the consensus statements to determine from 1 to 5 possible solutions for the issue. The result would be a complete description of each solution including the solution cost and the source of funding.

Some solutions would save money, lowering the organization's budget. Others would not change the budget. Some would increase costs. If needed, funding could be from the current budget, from fees, from donations, or from government revenues.

The details of the procedure used by the Federal Council to convert the consensus statements to solutions, the elements of each solution, and an explanation of the costs and funding are contained in Appendix 1. [A-1]

Citizens review the solutions

The Federal Council would post the descriptions of the solutions for the issue on their Citizen Governance Website with the usual notifications, making them available for review.

Participants would have gone from their fixed positions, to understanding their needs and the needs of others, to brainstorming ideas for solution features. In this part, citizens would have the opportunity to see and understand the resulting solutions and to give feedback on them. For each solution, participants would respond to a question on the statements and assessments screen asking them for their thoughts about the solution.

Update solutions as needed

After a given amount of time or a sufficient quantity of statement assessments, the Federal Council would study all of the statements, focusing especially on the consensus statements. The Federal Council would then update the solutions as needed and repost them. Some might be modified and others eliminated.

Part B. Select consensus solution

If there were only one proposed solution, then the solution would automatically be the consensus solution and the issue status would be set to indicate that the consensus solution had been selected. The rest of this Part B would be skipped. Otherwise, the issue status would be set and notifications distributed to indicate that multiple solutions were proposed requiring a vote. Participants would have a limited amount of time to vote, such as 15 or 30 days. The last day to vote would be included in the notifications.

Only citizens who had participated could vote

To be allowed to vote or to participate in any part of the democratic solution process, a citizen must participate from the beginning. In other words, they must have gone through every step and completed at least 10 assessments of statements for all questions in a step. Each step is a learning process, allowing their viewpoint to develop and mature, giving them the information they need to vote to select a solution and later to confirm that solution.

Therefore, it would be harmful to allow anyone to jump in at the last moment and vote without the benefits of the experience of participating in the full process. They would be voting based simply on their biased perspective from the media and other indoctrination.

Consequently, whenever a citizen found out about an issue and began to participate, they would start at the beginning of the process regardless of the current process step. There would be no way to jump ahead.

If a step had already been completed when they began to participate, they would be required to assess each statement in the consensus report for each question. After completing their assessments, they would be obliged to view the results for each of these statements in the consensus report for each question. To validate that they reviewed the results, they would check a box next to the statement on the report.

The purpose of this additional effort is to force them to become familiar with the consensus statements to catch up to the other participants. They must go through the process of moving from their biased position to relating to the perspectives, needs, and solution ideas of others. This would reduce the negative impact of special interests advertising to bring in additional Citizen participants to sway the vote.

Therefore, if the voting had been scheduled, they would have to complete Steps 1 and 2 and Part A of Step 3 before they would be presented with the screen to vote in Part B of Step 3.

Ranked pairs voting

Citizens would vote by ranking each solution in their order of preference. The solution favored most often over the others would be chosen as the consensus solution using the election tabulation process known as "ranked pairs." [1] If there were only two possible solutions, then ranked pairs would be equivalent to simply choosing the solution with the most votes. However, if there were three or more possible solutions, then ranking the solutions would be needed because the one with the most votes might not be the one most preferred.

For example, imagine that there were two distinct solutions, A and B. Solution A received 60% of the vote and solution B received 40%. Clearly, most people preferred solution A. Now imagine that there was a third solution that was similar to A but with slight differences and that it split the vote for solution A. Solution B still received 40% of the votes. However, solution A now received 35% and solution C received 25% of the votes. Without ranked pairs, Solution B would be declared the winner even though there was a strong consensus against it. However, if those who voted for C didn't want solution B and would have ranked A as their second choice and B as their third, then A would be the clear winner over B using ranked pairs.

This happens often in elections where a third candidate takes part of the vote from the most popular candidate causing the most popular to lose. Now imagine there were 5 possible solutions. Determining the winner would be even more complex. With ranked pairs tabulation, the solution favored most often over the others would be chosen as the consensus solution resolving any issues.

Part C. Create the consensus solution wording

Now that a consensus solution had been selected, if the solution involved a new law or policy or changing an existing one, then the Federal Council would create the legal wording using legal counsel staff or contracted legal counsel. When the wording was completed and approved by the council, it would be posted on the Citizen Governance Website with the usual notifications.

Participants would read the wording of the consensus solution and answer a question asking if they had any suggested changes to or problems with the wording. After a given amount of time or number of statements assessed, the Federal Council would review all of the statements and have the wording updated by legal counsel as necessary.

Part D. Approve the consensus solution

The final wording of the solution would be posted with notifications that the solution was ready for final approval. If the solution amended the Constitution, then the Federal Council would issue press releases and ensure that all citizens would have a fair time to see the notification and to participate if desired. (They would need to start at the beginning of the process as described previously.) Regardless, any constitutional amendment issue would likely have a very high rate of participation.

Voting for the consensus solution would be yea or nay. Participants would have a minimum time such as 15 days to vote. To pass, a solution must receive a 60% consensus vote. However, to amend the constitution, a 66% consensus or super majority would be needed to pass.

Amending the constitution would be easier than it is now as ratification by state legislatures would not be necessary. The final approval vote is the ratification by the people of the amendment. If the people wanted to amend the constitution, there should not be barriers in their way as there have been with voting rights and other rights.