This is interesting, though I'd point out that "consensus" actually means something different than a simple majority agreement. It means "broad agreement". Almost nobody would consider a 51/49 vote split among a large group as consensus; and even 3/2 in a committee of five would be a stretch, especially if the two in the minority are united on an opposing alternative proposal.

I'm not sure that invalidates the core of the post, though, since I think a different consensus criterion could be substituted without losing the substance of the game.

Green Team Wins is a board game that is based on consensus. Players answer simple questions that don’t really have a correct answer. Eg. Pie or Cake. The answer with the majority wins. It’s a fun game to play with family or coworkers.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/347805/green-team-wins

I don't get this part

> Here, you asked R0, R2 and R3 to abstain from casting further votes in the first three columns, signified by black x.

If I can ask them to do that, and rely on them to go along with what I ask - why not skip all the middle steps and ask them all to vote for red?

The final diagram is a bit confusing, so it's worth pointing out one additional thing. It appears that R5 could vote green in column 2 and have green be agreed by a majority, even though in column 4, we are committing to blue as the value. However, as part of allowing blue to be selected in column 3, R5 must have already promised NOT to accept green in column 2. A more complete final diagram would show X's in all the appropriate cells.

I still don't understand the idea, but two questions anyway:

Why did R2 vote on the 6th column instead of the 1st one?

Why not just pick the leftmost column that has tree votes as the winner?

Why not use ranked choice voting?

[dead]

[dead]