The Quaker consensus is considered effective because it sets up a simple and proven structure that moves a group towards unity. The Quaker model aims to allow the listening of individual voices while providing a mechanism for managing differences of opinion.    Consensus formation and experiences on direct democracy have been a feature of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) voter registration projects in the southern United States; Students for a Democratic Society ‘Ad democratic Society‘ (in the mid-1960s), a few women‘s liberation groups (late 1960s to early 1970s) and anti-nuclear and pacifist groups (late 1970s and early 1980s).  For example, the anti-nuclear alliance Clamshell alliance and Movement for a New Society has engaged in consensual decision-making processes.  The origins of the formation of formal consensus go back much further, to the religious society of friends or Quakers who took technology as early as the 17th century.  The Baptists, including some Mennonites, have a history of consensual decision-making and some believe that the Baptists were already practicing consensus at the Martyrs Synod of 1527.  Some Christians attribute consensual decisions to the Bible. The Anabaptist Global Mennonite Encyclopedia refers in particular to Acts 15 as an example of consensus in the New Testament. The absence of a legitimate consensual process in the unanimous condemnation of Jesus by corrupt priests in an illegal Sanhedrin court (which had rules preventing unanimous condemnation in an early trial) influenced the views of pacifist Protestants, including Baptists (Mennonites/Amish), Quakkers and shakers. In particular, it influenced his distrust of the appropriate courtrooms and “to be clear about the trial” and to come together in such a way that “everyone must be heard”.  Among the most important components of the Quaker consensus are the belief in a common humanity and the ability to decide together. The goal is “unity, not unanimity.” We ensure that the group members speak only once until others are heard and promote a diversity of thought.
The moderator is seen as a service to the group rather than as a responsible person.  In the Quaker model, as in other consensus decision-making processes, the articulation of the consensus that emerges allows members to express themselves clearly on the preliminary decision. Since members‘ views will be taken into consideration, they are likely to support them.  To ensure that the approval or approval of all participants is appreciated, many groups choose unanimity or near-unanimity as the rule of decision. Groups that require unanimity allow individual participants to block a group decision. This provision encourages a group to ensure that all members of the group approve any new proposals before being adopted. However, it is important to put in place appropriate guidelines for the use of this option. The ethics of the consensual decision encourage participants to put the well-being of the whole group ahead of their individual preferences. If there is potential for a group decision-making bloc, both the group and the group‘s dissidents are encouraged to work together until an agreement can be reached. A simple veto of a decision is not considered to be a responsible management of the blocking of consensus.
Some common guidelines for the use of consensual blockages include: Confusion between unanimity and consensus generally leads to the failure of consensus decisions, and the group returns to the majority or majority rule or dissolves.