Deep Democracy Decision-Making
Deep Democracy Decision-Making is a majority-vote process from the Lewis Method of Deep Democracy that deliberately looks for dissent before and after the vote. The facilitator collects every view, makes it safe to disagree, checks who else shares the minority view, and after voting asks the minority what they would need in order to go along, then adds those conditions to the decision. The method was developed by Myrna and Greg Lewis in South Africa in the 1990s and builds on Arnold Mindell's process-oriented psychology.
Facilitation script
- 1
Run a short check-in on one or two questions, with people speaking when they are ready. Then state the decision to be made and how the process will run.
8 min - 2
Collect all views on the issue on the flip chart. Paraphrase briefly and move on; hold back debate.
12 min - 3
Ask directly for a view that differs from what has been said. When one comes, thank the person and ask who else shares some part of it. Add these views to the chart.
10 min - 4
Summarise the options into a proposal the group can vote on, and take the vote by show of hands. Record the numbers.
5 min - 5
Ask each person in the minority what they would need to come along. Write the conditions next to the decision, check with the majority that they can be included, and read out the amended decision.
10 min - 6
Confirm the final decision with the whole group and note who does what. If the decision clearly does not hold, name that and agree when and with whom to take the issue further.
5 min
Tips
Stay visibly neutral, and treat the first dissenting voice with care, because how you respond to it decides whether anyone else will speak.
Ask the minority what they need, not why they voted no; the first question produces conditions the group can act on and the second produces a defence.
Only move into the argument step if you have been trained to hold it, since it surfaces things people have been avoiding.
Common pitfalls
Asking for dissent as a formality and moving on within seconds, which teaches the group that the invitation is not meant
Leaving the no with one person instead of spreading it, so the dissenter is treated as the problem and stays silent next time
Hearing the minority's needs and then not changing the decision, which is worse than not asking
A facilitator with a stake in the outcome running the vote; the minority will not trust the count or the summary
Opening the argument step without training or enough time, and ending the meeting with strong feelings exposed and nothing resolved
Variations
Write-ups describe the method as four steps: gather all the views, look for the no, spread the no, and vote and add what the minority needs. The argument for unresolved tension is counted as a fifth. The instructions on this page list the vote and the minority question separately and put an optional check-in first, which is why they run to seven items. For low-stakes decisions the four core steps can run quickly inside a normal meeting. Online, collect views and the vote in the chat or a poll, and ask the minority question aloud. Deep Democracy is also the name Arnold Mindell uses for a wider body of work; this page covers the decision-making steps of the Lewis Method, which is taught through its own training courses. This description is not a substitute for that training.
Where it fits
When to use it
A team keeps deciding things by vote or by the manager's call and then sees the decisions quietly ignored
You sense disagreement in the room that nobody is saying out loud
One person regularly ends up as the lone objector and the group has started to dismiss them
A decision needs the active cooperation of the people who would have preferred something else
The group wants to keep majority voting but reduce the cost it carries for the minority
When not to use it
The decision is already made and the meeting is only to announce it. Asking for the no and then ignoring it does more damage than a plain announcement
The group works by consent and wants every objection integrated before deciding. Use Consent Decision-Making or Integrative Decision-Making
You only need a quick reading of support for a low-stakes choice. Fist of Five or Gradients of Agreement is enough
There is an open, escalated conflict between people. That needs a trained practitioner or a format such as Restorative Dialogue, not a decision process
People face real consequences for disagreeing with someone in the room, and you cannot change that for the session
Related methods
Frequently asked questions
What is Deep Democracy Decision-Making?▾
It is a way of taking majority decisions that gives the minority view a structured place. The group gathers all views, the facilitator actively looks for disagreement and checks who shares it, the group votes, and the minority is asked what it needs to come along. Those needs are added to the decision.
Who developed the Lewis Method of Deep Democracy?▾
Myrna and Greg Lewis, psychologists working in South Africa, developed it in the 1990s while helping a large company deal with the legacy of apartheid. It builds on Arnold Mindell's process-oriented psychology. The method is taught through Lewis Deep Democracy courses.
What does 'spreading the no' mean?▾
When one person voices a dissenting view, the facilitator asks who else recognises it, even partly. This shows that the view belongs to the group and not to one difficult individual. It protects the dissenter and usually reveals that the disagreement is wider than it looked.
How is it different from consent decision-making?▾
Consent decision-making keeps adjusting a proposal until nobody has a reasoned objection, so there is no outvoted minority. Deep Democracy Decision-Making keeps the majority vote and then improves the decision with what the minority needs. It is often quicker and suits groups that are used to voting.
What happens if the minority still cannot accept the decision?▾
The method then offers a further step for conflict that sits below the surface, in which both sides say everything they have to say, people reflect on what touched them personally and the group decides again. This step needs a facilitator trained in the method. Without one, record the open issue and plan a separate session.
Plan your next workshop with AI
Workshop Weaver helps you combine methods like Deep Democracy Decision-Making into a complete, timed agenda in minutes.
Try it freeMethod descriptions on Workshop Weaver are original content written by our team, based on established facilitation practices. This method was inspired by work from Myrna and Greg Lewis, Lewis Method of Deep Democracy.