Yet, on paper, they sound good.

It is ironic that this procedure is the exact opposite of true governance via consensus. In the latter case, if even one person disagreed, the default was to take no action. This is, of course, not the Presbyterian process – but it has a certain moral argument. Consensus building decision making techniques, on the other hand, use ostracism and peer pressure to force a particular outcome.

Worse, there is another effect you don’t mention. People put through the wringer of this process … small group discussion … weighted presentation … quasi committee of the whole … – when they finally come to a solution, usually will defend that solution because of the ordeal of reaching it. This is an internalized pressure: that they got through it – that they came up with something – creates an automatic buy in.