Some proponents of consensus would argue that a majority decision reduces each decision-maker`s commitment to a decision. Members of a minority position may feel less compelled to vote by majority, and even majority voters who have taken their positions along parties or blocks may have a reduced sense of responsibility in the final decision. In the view of many supporters of consensus, the outcome of this reduced commitment is potentially less willing to defend the decision or act. Nglish: Translation of consensus for Spanish spokespeople A decision-making process that aims at broad consensus among members of political groups. General coherence between members of a given group or community, each of whom exercises some discretion in decision-making and follow-up. The phrase of the consensus of opinion, which is not really redundant (see The Sense 1a; the meaning that takes the sentence is a little older), has been so often called redundancy that many writers avoid it. You are sure to be the only one capable of consensus when it is clear that you agree, and most authors do. Since the consensus decision focuses on the debate and seeks input from all parties involved, it can be a time-taking process. This is a potential liability in situations where decisions must be made quickly or where it is not possible to obtain the advice of all delegates within a reasonable time. In addition, the time required to participate in the consensus decision-making process can sometimes be a barrier to the participation of people who are unable or unable to make the commitment.  However, once a decision has been made, it can be implemented more quickly than a decision made. American businessmen complained that they had to discuss the idea with everyone, even the janitor, during negotiations with a Japanese company, but as soon as a decision was made, the Americans discovered that the Japanese could act much faster because everyone was on board, while the Americans were in the grip of internal opposition. The group first selects three arbitrators or consensuals. The debate on the chosen problem is initiated by the moderator who launches proposals. Any proposed option is accepted when arbitrators decide that it is relevant and in accordance with the UN Charter of Human Rights. Referees establish and display a list of these options. The debate continues, with questions, comments, criticism and/or even new options. If the debate fails to reach a verbal consensus, the arbitrators draw up a definitive list of options – usually between 4 and 6 – to represent the debate. If everyone agrees, the president asks for a preferential vote, in accordance with the rules of a modified Count of Borda, MBC. Referees will decide on the option or combination of the two main options. If support exceeds a minimum consensus coefficient, it can be accepted.   Etymology: Consensus, consento; see approval. It all started, the consensus seems to be, with the red poultry of the jungle. The emergence of consensus and direct experiences for democracy has been one of the hallmarks of student coordination committee (NCSC) voter registration projects in the southern United States; Students for a Democratic Society `Ad democratic Society` (in the mid-1960s), a few women`s liberation groups (late 1960s to early 1970s) and anti-nuclear and pacifist groups (late 1970s and early 1980s).  For example, the anti-nuclear alliance Clamshell alliance and Movement for a New Society has engaged in consensual decision-making processes.  The origins of the formation of formal consensus go back much further, to the religious society of friends or Quakers who took technology as early as the 17th century.  The Baptists, including some Mennonites, have a history of consensual decision-making and some believe that the Baptists were already practicing consensus at the Martyrs Synod of 1527.  Some Christians attribute consensual decisions to the Bible.