#06 · During the Assembly
How can we arrive at proposals and decisions as peers? What makes a decision legitimate and collectively owned? Which decision-making modes (e.g., consensus, majority rule) fit which situation?
—
A legitimate and collectively owned decision is procedurally fair, representative, and transparent, with pathways to policy impact. Deliberative processes are essential for legitimacy and acceptance. Research suggests that citizens tend to accept outcomes, even unfavourable ones, when they trust the fairness of the process. If topics or formats are too rigidly defined, participants may not feel they are leading the process, undermining motivation and authenticity of collective decision-making. The optimal approach depends on the context, political culture, and complexity of the issue at stake, requiring a balance of inclusivity, decisiveness, and depth of participation.
CCA participants often enter discussions with preconceived ideas about the outcome. Arriving at decisions as peers with a polyphony of voices relies less on formal consensus and more on the deliberation preceding a vote. Although CCAs typically use simple majority voting for decision-making, their legitimacy depends on the extent to which participants engage in informed, inclusive, and balanced dialogue. Small groups can help express and integrate diverse and marginalised viewpoints. Enacting polyphonic decision-making may entail creating opportunities for participants to critically question invited people with expertise about their evidence and assumptions, while building common ground beyond polarisation.
At the CCA Klimabürgerrat (DE) in South Tyrol the Consent principle (DE) a core principle of Sociocracy was employed. Here, participants did not need to fully agree with a proposal but could raise and integrate/incorporate dissent and objections until no one had a reasoned or substantial objection anymore (“Is there any reasoned and significant objection?”). This approach differs from consensus (“does everyone agree?”), as it focuses on finding a “good enough and safe enough” solution acceptable to all rather than complete agreement. The result was reaching more comprehensive and balanced proposals and decision addressing and reflecting the diverse perspectives and interests. Case study: How to find consensus
Description of Consensus-Building Techniques like multi-voting or dot-voting
Tool for quadratic voting + description of its application Quadratic Commons, Design for collective Decision Making, and short movie about its application in community land trust and information on Quadratic Voting on Taiwan’s digital democracy platform “Join”
https://www.oidp.net/docs/repo/doc1586.pdf
Majority voting is widely applied in CCAs, e.g. CCA Catalonia or the Irish Citizens’ Assembly, where recommendations were decided by secret ballot vote
Voting with weighted votes https://www.mehr-demokratie.de/fileadmin/pdf/2024/Leitfaden_Kommunale_Burgerraete_organisieren__2024_.pdf
Garry J, Pow J, Coakley J, Farrell D, O’Leary B, Tilley J. The Perception of the Legitimacy of Citizens’ Assemblies in Deeply Divided Places? Evidence of Public and Elite Opinion from Consociational Northern Ireland. Government and Opposition. 2022;57(3):532-551. doi:10.1017/gov.2021.4
Gastil, J., & Richards, R.C. (2013). Making Direct Democracy Deliberative through Random Assemblies*. Politics & Society, 41, 253 - 281.
Krick, E. (2017). The Myth of Effective Veto Power under the Rule of Consensus. Dynamics and Democratic Legitimacy of Collective Decision-Making by “Tacit Consent”.
Marquardt, J., Pfeiffer, F., Blum, M., Daw, T. M., Dugasseh, F. A., Heitzig, J., … Tønder, L. (2025). Reconciling democracy and sustainability: three political challenges and the role of democratic innovations. "Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy", 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2025.2504239
Mata, F., Verdejo, Á., Pérez, L.G., & Porcel, C. (2021). A preliminary study of a citizen participation system based on consensus for Decision-making Processes. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Posner, E.A., & Weyl, E.G. (2014). Voting Squared: Quadratic Voting in Democratic Politics. PSN: Justice (Topic).
Wells, R., Howarth, C. & Brand-Correa, L.I. Are citizen juries and assemblies on climate change driving democratic climate policymaking? An exploration of two case studies in the UK.Climatic Change 168, 5 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03218-6
