A political-ish post, so look away now if that's problematic for you!

Today a bill passed through the House of Commons on a vote of 313 'for' and 291 'against'; 39 people did not vote. So it seems that, once again, a hugely significant piece of legislation has passed on a 52:48 vote.  Irrespective of what anyone felt about the Scottish Independence Referendum in 2014 (lost by 'Yes' 45:55) or the EU Referendum in 2016 (won by 'leave' 52:48), surely by now we have worked out that proceeding with massive change of the basis of small majority just leads to unrest, dissatisfaction and a lot of anxiety and fear.

Recently, the Roman Catholic Church elected a new Pope, an appointment which required the person elected to achieve 66.7% of those present and voting.  Not necessarily unanimity (and, rightly we'll never be told what the level achieved was) but a decent majority, granting a level of confidence that this was a good decision.

In Baptist churches, we are big on 'communal discernment' and, at our best, will aim to find consensus (something we can all live with) rather than voting on every little thing.  But some things we do vote on, and usually, when it's important by secret ballot.

For Trustees, I have known churches elect on as little as 67% and as high as 75% - expressing a measure of confidence in those appointed, and reducing the 'I didn't vote for them anyway' grumble possibility.  In most churches, and rightly, figures are never disclosed, but I can say from more than 35 years experience of Baptist churches, something close to unanimity is usually achieved for those elected; I have never known any to fail to be elected as a 'near miss'.

For ministers, the bar is often set as high as 90% and rarely lower than 75%, quite reasonably expecting a great degree of consensus/agreement/discernment/confidence.  I have experienced four 'call' votes myself.  One was a very clear 'no' with the vote being almost exactly 50/50; one a 'near miss' being 72% on a 75% call; one just in, being 78% on a 75% call; and one almost unanimous at 98% on a 90% call.  Often, and this was certainly the case for church number four albeit not needed, a contingency is put in place for a 'close call' to ask people to support the decision. (For the record, my current role is 'Appointed' not 'Called' so no such figure exist)

The point of these high figures is that these decisions are really important.  The point of confirmatory votes (and I have used these on occasion in church meetings were a vote was only just carried) is to ensure that those who 'lose' are willing to go along with those who have 'won' - or to be more holy about it, that we all agree that God's will (or Christ's mind) has been discerned. 

What we had on 'Indie' and 'Brexit' was a decision that left no-one really satisfied and that leaves a lot of hurt, mess and muddle - there may have been those things anyway, but a higher threshold vote might have made a difference.  I fear the same may yet be true of the Assisted Dying Bill... roughly as many MPs voted against the decision as for it; on a different day the vote might have gone the other way, and I really don't feel confident that there is a clear mandate for this legal change, yet the ramifications will continue to be felt long into the future... meanwhile people with disabilities, people on low incomes, and people whose life's work is in the hospice movement feel frustrated, angry and afraid.