Quaker poll
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Quaker poll is a particular method for making decisions or for clarifying whether a group has general consensus. Its name might suggest that it originated with the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), but that's at least misleading in that the "Quaker poll" is a form of consensus decision-making, which is fundamentally secular in nature, whereas Quaker decision making is fundamentally religious.
Often, a deliberative group may have many proposals on the table, each with a minority supporting it. A simple vote obscures the fact that people have opinions on most or all of the proposals; being able to vote only for one "best" candidate can lead to undesirable results. The more options there are to choose between, the worse the problem.
The grossest example arises when one option is everyone's second choice (perhaps even a very close second), but everyone has a differing first choice. Taking everyone's second choice is probably the best result in that case, but normal voting would not achieve it.
In a Quaker poll, in contrast, each person rates each option on a simple 3-point scale:
- Prefer or greatly favor
- Can live with or accept
- Cannot live with or tolerate
The phrasing of the choices can vary, but the basic point is that everyone rates every option as a strong positive or negative, or a neutral (abstentions may be allowed). A simple chart can then be made, showing the number of times each option was given each rating. Often the chart is made on a display during the actual voting, though a Quaker poll can as easily be taken by closed balloting, a show of hands, or other methods.
This method can often reveal a consensus that was not evident before. For example, it may be that only one option is even tolerable to everyone, and that may be an excellent compromise. Or it may be that one option has an overwhelming majority if you add each option's positive and neutral "votes."
Even when a clear consensus does not become evident, discussion can often be usefully narrowed. For example, the least tolerable options can be eliminated, and the others discussed further.
This method has proven remarkably effective for breaking deadlock and making rapid progress, and has been used in a number of computer standards committees [1]
