Forum Post: __ How does the GA decision-making process work? __
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 1, 2011, 11:59 a.m. EST by hillary
(252)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
For the last 3 weeks i've been hearing about this process and i'd like to understand how it works but the problem seems to be that only a few elite members of the leaderless leadership know how it works and my fear is that the way it works is shrouded in secrecy enough that the leaderless leadership can invoke fathom rules to make or break a decision.
Various explanation I heard were that: it was a simple majority, then I heard that 1 person can derail a vote, then I read that some decisions require unanimity, then I heard that the process prevents people from swaying the vote by bringing in their friends but I don't see how.
If Occupy is suppose to be the new "way" I would hope the GA would be a shining example of what this democracy looks like.
Edit: "bensdad" offered this: "I believe this is the core of the method ( that i disagree with ) "voting" is by "consensus" and requires 90% approval abstentions are counted as yes votes a group can change itself to "modified consensus" which requires 75% in stead of 90% I witnessed a group meeting whose sole purpose was to set a date for another meeting - and, using the "process" , could not do this in 4 1/2 hours. Meetings, flooded with obstructors - only at 11% or 26% can wreck a meeting. Why are abstainers forced to vote yes? The "block" - a one person veto - is rarely used but, in theory could be used to stop anything. The "process" may be the only option at the multi-thousand GA with no real microphone. But in a group of 10-50, no. Look how successful the tp is with the minority in the Senate - why cant we learn from their experience? imho"
For the quote you posted: "abstentions are counted as yes votes " - They are and should be taken off the total number of votes. If you abstaining means you are neutral/ choose not to vote on this subject. Thus officially a "non vote".
""modified consensus" which requires 75% in stead of 90%" - I have not seen this happen or ever heard of it happening until mentioned in your post. Doesnt mean it has never happened, just not that i am aware.
"and, using the "process" , could not do this in 4 1/2 hours." - direct democracy is a long and slow process.
"Meetings, flooded with obstructors - only at 11% or 26% can wreck a meeting." - The meeting works like this. If there are to many people who object then questions are raised by the people voting and that usually solves the problem. If it is to controversial in its present form, the proposal is tabled, reworked and presented later. You have to be prepared to give a reason for a no and a block. So they can attempt to resolve your issue. I imagine people who are obviously there to obstruct the process are at some point ignored. IN other words, if you are going to say no then you need to have a reason for it and not be saying no just to be an obstructionist.
"The "block" - a one person veto - is rarely used but, in theory could be used to stop anything." - I am not sure how this is worked in. However i do not see a one person veto undermining the whole proposal. Again you have to voice your problem with it. So you have to be prepared to have a good reason. I think this can be overrode in some/most cases. Again i am not exactly for sure how this part works.
"Look how successful the tp is with the minority in the Senate - why cant we learn from their experience? imho"" - The TP in the senate is able to block everything because of how our govt works. The GA does not follow the same rule set. So really this is just someone being pessimistic about how things work. Again you vote no and you have to be ready to voice your reason. Questions usually resolve most of the people voting no.
Another note on this that may help you with your question. I was reading the most recent GA minutes (10/28/11) and they are talking about a spokes council as a proposal. From reading the minutes you can see kind of see how they deal with obstructionists and see that they are trying to resolve some problems/improve the current system.
Great thank you for your help.
http://www.theawl.com/2011/10/the-livestream-ended-how-i-got-off-my-computer-and-into-the-streets-at-occupy-oakland
Please read this link. It might help you understand.
I am going to respond to your post and the 12 comments so far all at once. People assume because they cannot find something that it is not there or is being kept secret. This is what our govt has done to its people. Everything has become a conspiracy and has ulterior motives.
The GA is a direct democracy that uses a modified consensus. It has rules and people who direct the GA along. A 90% consensus is required. Everyone who shows up at a GA can vote. I believe they use "working groups" to bring proposals to the table and anyone can create a working group for something.
The site you are on right now is a "support" site. The official NYCGA is located through the button by the same name on the header bar of this site.
On the NYCGA site you can read all the GA minutes. Basically transcripts of the meetings. Here is a recent explanation given at NYCGA of the hand signals used in a GA meeting.
"We have hand signals we want to teach you.
Hands up fingers wiggling means I agree! I feel good! hands straight forward, fingers wiggling, means i’m on the fence. hands down, fingers wiggling means i disagree, i don’t feel so good. this is a C for clarifying questions, i don’t understand. Need clarification. Can’t always call on these, keep it relevant. one finder is point of information – I have a fact, can clarify. hands in a triangle means Point of Process it means that there is something happening right now or that doesn’t comport with the way this process is supposed to go. hands turning, get to the point. We understand. you’re using too many words. * Arms up forming an X, this a block – i have serious moral ethical or safety objections to the proposal being discussed. so when we look for consensus at the end of the discussion, we will ask if anyone blocks – it’s very serious, not if you just don’t like it."
You can red the NYCGA minutes here: http://www.nycga.net/category/assemblies/minutes-ga/
And a "pamphlet" on the process they use here: http://www.nycga.net/resources/general-assembly-guide/
Thank you, that is helpful, but doesn't that also mean that a special-interest group can derail the direction of Occupy simply on the basis of stacking the vote?
If you bring enough people to get a majority, yes. That is why direct democracies never work on a national level. The majority always wins which means the minorities always lose. But for what Occupy is trying to accomplish it has worked so far. Much better than the TP attempt, which got hi jacked nearly right away by the GOP and then twisted into their own version.
Good question. I would also like to know how to get an agenda item in front of the GA.
Such as, take a vote on lets move forward with identifying the steps necessary to get going on Campaign Finance Reform, or Financial Reform, or Corp Personhood abolished.
Who is willing to work with government and through government to get these things done?
They won't tell you. Only the leaderless "elites" can actually make the vote pass or not.
I suppose thats what happens when anarchists are running the show and they have no intention of working with or through government to affect change.
It's certainly bad PR to be a movement for the people and at the same time, keep the people out the loop.
I don't believe they are for the people at all. If they were truly for the people and as "democratic" as they claim they are - how come we aren't moving forward with addressing the legitimate concerns of the majority of people (ie: campaign finance reform, financial regulations etc)? Because OWS GA has their own agenda - which is to gain support for Direct Democracy and some form of anarchistic society. They are taking advantage of our country's social/political/financial problems to do so.
Hmmm that makes sense.... would explain why they lull people into their collective anger "pit" and then try to turn the tables to move the momentum of the anger to whatever agenda they may have.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11293836/1/meet-the-man-behind-occupy-wall-street.html
From what I can tell, most of the anarchists here want to end our Representative Republic form of government in favor of Direct Democracy and Anarcho-Syndicalism. You need to Wiki these things to really understand. I had to anyway! Because I sure didn't know what it meant!
And be careful when you use the word democracy, because this means something specific to the anarchists. It means ending our Representative form of government.
DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE THIS - GA decisions are in the hands of those making the rules, NOT THE PEOPLE.
DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE THIS - GA decisions are in the hands of those making the rules, NOT THE PEOPLE.
Just received this message from someone:
"The GA doesn't want to publish the rules because they are currently dealing with organized groups that are trying to influence the direction of the movement by using the rules against them."
Organized groups working against them?
You mean like "non-anarchists" ?
Lame excuse. If the rules can be bent and thwarted with so much ease then it's because there is a problem with the rules. If this system cannot work at such a small level, it will never work for the nation.
I see. Secrecy prevails in this movement.....