Watching some of Synod this week is always fun. An ongoing struggle for Synod is to figure out how as a body to allow good deliberation while not wasting time on speeches that won’t in the end impact the decision.
Most items that Synod decides don’t go long, but a handful of things each Synod go very long. When this happens Synod has to figure out how long to debate the matter. This isn’t easy. Last night in the debate on the scope of a study committee most of the speakers were clearly in favor of the advisory report. In the end the vote was not close.
Here is an idea that could be enacted by the electronic voting mechanism.
If a debate goes beyond a number of speakers (5 or 10 let’s say) or if it goes beyond 15 minutes, the chair can poll the assembly. The poll would be as follows:
Press 1. If you oppose the motion and you currently feel settled about it.
Press 2. If you oppose the motion but are still open to hear more on the subject.
Press 3: If you’re on the fence.
Press 4: If you’re leaning in favor of the motion but are still open to hear more on the subject.
Press 5: If you’re in favor of the motion and you feel settled on your decision.
This would inform the chair and the floor as to how much debate is needed.
Leadingchurch.com 
Nice. But all those buttons may confuse a delegate even more when the debate with amended motions is being discussed.
Your proposal Paul, moves in a direction where ‘readiness to vote’ will be the key criteria for voting, hastening a ‘coming to a conclusion’ and lessening a deliberation.
What I thought of as I read it was some attempts I had seen news shows make to have an ‘audience’ assembled who were constantly giving their impressions as they watched politicians debate and then had the ‘favorable/unfavouableness’ graphed onto the screen. I don’t think you get good thinking if you are doing that.
Your proposal also creates a situation where, if polled before discussion begins, there might be a lot of certainty. On your criteria then, a vote could be held because a majority were sure they had a conclusion.
My thought and hope is that as discussion happens, opinions may clarify with new understand and possibly change. That is what a ‘deleberative assembly’ that leans on the Holy Spirit’s moving does.
I wouldn’t want to see any polling until at least some discussion had happened. In most cases a “cease debate” vote closes the queue but allows those in the queue to have their say. It wouldn’t force the chair or the body to do anything, but what I often see are these long discussions when the vote was not close and probably would never be close. I think this deters service. Knowing that you have shorter window could potentially encourage people to be better prepared to speak, organize their points better, and keep it moving.
Or perhaps our present system encourages delegates on the floor in that small space to develop patience and long-suffering. 🙂