How do we fit that domain name space for this project into this framework? ConsensusPolling.org ~~ MarkDilley

On one section of the consensus poll tour it states, “why consensus polling works”. To me this raises the question, “works for what?”

I could imagine Google having a consensus poll on a big picture topic, perhaps building of an alternative fuel car, etc., and then saying it will pitch in a billion dollars to pay for the effort, once the public has worked out its preferences and desires via consensus polling. Backed up by such well known public entity, and in effect a promise of a big cash contribution, I believe it could put the consensus polling process on the radar screen of the average Joe and Jane in the populace.

Lacking this, it seems that today consensus polling is not dealing with major issues (often involving big money to execute), and does not have a “Google like” player behind it, so the number of participants are few, and the nature of the topics “so far” not capturing the attention of a larger audience.

Will consensus polling ever deal with issues that impact more people, and gain the participation of millions? How do we get from here to there? MartinPfahler

MartinPfahler, I like this line of inquiry. Maybe we need to be upfront with our vision of how this is a creative solution to such issues as you mention. I think that we need to do a good job at learning how to be successful in a ConsensusPoll, many ConsensusPolls. To begin to have the skills and experience to imagine how one would work at such a level. MarkDilley

MarkDilley, I think you make some good points, which also raise new questions.

What is the measurement of success in consensus polling? Is the poll successful in cases where less than 100 people took part – and has “learning how” taken place under these small scale participation conditions? If so, will this success translate to larger scales, such as when a million or more people take part?

I suspect it is human nature that the general populace becomes more curious and entertains polling participation when they see million “plus” consensus polling group sizes, because folks realize it is often the case that larger numbers of people agreeing on the same thing gains more clout and media buzz, so a greater chance to "make it happen".

Seems to me a very large and well known entity with deep pockets (Google size?) has a much better chance to prove consensus polling viability at large scales while at the same time making something important happen via consensus polling, simply because they already have lots of eyeballs, and a relevant press release from such Internet giant would alone get lots of media buzz and public attention, relative to “try out this new censuses polling process”.

Also when seeing a successful consensus pole on a topic of interest to a tiny group, some might think, “this process only works for a small group and their niche topic, rather than broader general interest topics with millions of participants – so building up a successful small scale track record might still fall short of swaying Joe and Jane public to participate.

Censuses polling requires a change in human behavior over what most people currently know and have within their comfort zone – the voting process. History has shown that humans tend to resist change, instead preferring to do what they already know. For this reason, if no large “Google like” entity promotes the new process in a big way, it might be that it will just take a long time for this new process to gain broader public awareness and participation. If the public perceives as “it will take a long time before consensus polling becomes a big and impact producing process” that too can have a negative impact on participation, because lots of people simply don’t want to use their time to learn about processes that they perceive will do them no good until after they are dead.MartinPfahler

edit Broader participation by the general public

Perhaps there can be an increase in the general public's consensus polling participation by gaining their perception that a consensus topic (of interest to the general public) has potential for real action rather than just “talk”, via some initial money in a project execution pot. To fill this pot initially, chasing after philanthropic money might not be the best strategic approach. Money from philanthropic sources is generally risk averse (due to complex process issues within the philanthropic sector). In contrast in the commercial sector where there are early stage angel inventors and venture capitalists, they are all about covering high early stage risk.

Attracting this type of commercial risk funding involves a sophisticated game of figuring out then telling these risk investors what they want to hear, and part of this game is convincing them that they will make a lot of profit (returns) if they provide their money (this is the same money fueling dynamic that powers aboutus growth).

In such regard one can ask the question, “how can a consensus polling topic generate profit for these early stage investors?” For example if the topic involves creation of an alternative energy mini commuter vehicle, at some point people must buy this gizmo, and then cash becomes available to funnel back to the VCs. Or perhaps these VC’s will fund research to create perennial rather than annual crop plants, with potential to make radical global environmental improvements while feeding more of the world’s poor (see related article in this months “Scientific American” magazine). When these new plants are purchased by farmers, and resulting crop products sold, some of this money can flow back to the VC’s.

When trying to execute such projects a critical process problem as I see it, is that these typical early stage investors want lots of control, since they take a high risk. To break past this typical barrier in effect one makes the following pitch to the VC’s: “Right now you folks make profit by maintaining a high degree of decision making control, in collaboration with very view key executives in a small growth company. In contrast with the new consensus polling process you can make more profit (returns) by giving up more of your typical control, and putting more strategic decisions into the hands of the general populace”. In this case the VC’s are betting that if they fund this new model (put some money in the project pot) they will make more money – which is the ultimate concern of VC’s. You can bet this pitch is also likely a tough sell, because early stage investors are so used to having high degrees of control, and this flies in the face of their personal life experiences.

In regard to this line of strategic thinking having lots of collaborating people, that are outside the investment community, brainstorming how to make consensus polling more attractive to angel investors and VCs, so they put some money in the pot, might have limited value. In contrast the demographic that could have high participation in this brainstorming, is actual angel investors and VCs. Here the problem is they are typically very difficult for “outsiders” to access, to gain their brainstorming participation.

Brandon and Ray already have access to these folks, and Brandon has passion for consensus polling. If there is a serious aboutus intent, meaning to make bigger things happen via consensus polling, seems to me such key aboutus folks are in a much better position than general public "outsiders" (like me) to bring such risk investors into this brainstorming process. The aboutus early stage investors might not have interest in this line of discussion, but these investment folks typically operate within a broader investment community, and might know of others that would entertain this type of brainstorming and make relevant introductions. Short of this type of “improved” censuses polling brainstorming participation I suspect the consensus polling process will have limited progress relative to making bigger and important things happen (from the perspective of the general populace). MartinPfahler