Getting To Consensus

#252: A Taiwanese Model
..................
The BBC website posted an article recently describing a new process the Taiwanese government uses to get to consensus on issues:

Process:
1. Crowdsource objective facts from stakeholder factions about a specific issue
2. Communicate via dedicated social media: statements aimed at resolving the issue are drafted within each faction, after pro- and con- suggestions are offered
3. A rough consensus is reached between factions, followed by hammering out detailed recommendations

Tweaks to a normal discussion:
  * no 'reply' button (so no person-to-person vitriol)
  * most messages within factions regarding their own drafts are not shared with other factions
  * instead, messages that find support across different groups, as well as within them, are highlighted for all to see
  * thus, rather than fostering negativity, the process is gamified in a way that tilts toward consensus

First, is adopting this system possible here in the US?  And second, could there be problems with the process?

Could it be adapted for our government?
1. What if a new president held monthly televised town halls on different topics.  If a subject were announced well in advance, stakeholders could develop draft resolutions, and reach a rough consensus, which the president could then present to the town hall audience as he/she answered questions.  Or, if the president didn't agree with the consensus, it could be sent back for further tweaking.  The initial discussion and negotiating would take place on a dedicated social media platform that tilted the process towards consensus as above.
2.  Alternately, the process could be decentralized, and instead handled through the House of Representatives, with congress members playing the president's role, and the audience being online. I've described something like this here.  Representatives would then decide whether to follow the will of the voters, and the president would weigh in only to initiate discussion, and, once legislation passes both the House and Senate, to either sign or veto the 'consensus' produced.

Any problems?
  * The Taiwanese example cited was a conflict between Uber drivers, their customers, and traditional taxi drivers.  This is a clear cut case with defined stakeholders.  Are most issues so easily squared off?  Probably not, but there's no harm in trying to resolve conflicts of interest.
  * Do fundamental conflicts fester, after being papered over?  Likely no more so than in any other method used, though again, only experience will speak to this.
  * Are innovative ideas, that might otherwise emerge, drowned out by the urge to bridge the gap between factions?  It wouldn't seem so at first glance, since the initial discussion is within factions, where innovation would have room to appear.  But, again, we won't know till we experiment, though there may be a problem of defining factions at the beginning of the process that leaves some interested parties outside looking in.

Our next president would do well to increase transparency and consensus building, and the above would seem a good place to start.