Imagine we have a group of 6 people, and 3 people nominate candidate A, and 3 people nominate candidate B. In majority vote, this would be a tie. If you are the facilitator (and you nominated one of those people) — what do you do?
For consent decision making, we have to know a little more. What is the underlying story?
The facilitator’s task is to get the group to come to a decision that everyone can work with. If that is true for both candidates, great. We can also say that. I am guessing that both candidates could get consent from the group which shows how much skill and trust we have in this group. Then make a decision, and be specific in your reasoning. We can go back to the qualifications and how we would prioritize them. For example, did we say we wanted to select someone who does not have a lot of experience yet? Then go with the least experienced candidate. Or is there another qualification that makes the difference? Always remember: we are looking to find a candidate that everyone can consent to. The task is not to find the best candidate.
We know it can be hard for groups to make a decision if it feels almost arbitrary and both candidates are good and respected. Split decisions are paralyzing so any way out of a split decision is better than paralysis. We invite readers to think about it not in terms of fairness. If we try to make it fair, there is hardly a good way out. (Workarounds are typically sharing roles, taking turns etc. which we don’t support without hesitation.) Instead of making it fair, look at it from the organization’s perspective. It is not a \textit{problem} to have two good members who can fill a role and have the full support from their circle – it’s a gift. It’s the expectation that things be fair that makes it so hard, not the fact that there is a tie.
For more information, check out our handbook Many Voices One Song section 3.6.3