voting methods: active split voting

this would be most applicable for smaller governing bodies, such as a congress/parlaiment. It takes into consideration the common US voting method for juries of murder trials. The outcome of these votes is considered rather important, so a strict consensus vote is required. All members must vote for or against a guilty verdict. Multiple votes must be taken until all members make the same choice. Members must try to convince others to vote with them, making the voting procedure rather active.

I think a similar strict system should be in place for the more important votes on legislation. The most important decisions, perhaps ammending the constitution, would require the jury method of all or none. Run of the mill decisions that change very little would require a standard >50% majority. Other votes would be somewhere in between, based on how drastic the change would be. Many of the more important decisions might require something like a 75 – 25 percent split; >75% yeah to pass, <25% yeah to fail. If the proper consensus was not met, deliberation would continue for a while, then another vote would be taken, continuing until a yeah or nay consensus was reached. This would ensure a more agreed upon decision, and render a simple majority of seats less powerful.

Lots of ‘deals’ would undoubtedly be made to ensure minority support of majority bills, but this is already a noteable problem. There would need to be strict rules in place to decide which sort of bills deserve which sort of split, to ensure a ruling party would not be as able to simply vote all votes on a 50% split.

At the very least, many more votes should be required to achieve a 60 or 75% consensus. Amendmants should require even greater consensus, due to the extreme power they weild.