Bonser method
Open-knowledge reference entry
The Bonser method is used to prioritize motions proposed in a democratic meeting. Voters cast red, yellow or green votes for each motion.
Red means "I understand this motion and am opposed to it", green means "I understand this motion and am in favour of it", and, yellow means either "I wish to learn more about this motion" or "I do not like this motion's present wording, but I think the concept has merit."
In a Bonser method vote the proportion of green votes required to adopt a motion and the proportion of red votes required to reject a motion is more than 60% of votes cast. Motions voted yellow are typically sent to a workshop for refinement and improvement.
This method was named after its inventor, Canadian Greg Bonser.
Greg Bonser introduced his colour-coded voting system at a Green Party of Ontario convention in 2003 held in Toronto, Canada. He explained to the delegates that his voting system would facilitate counting the yea (green) and then the nay(red) votes for each policy in an orderly and accurate manner, but it would also open the door for policies that were worthy of consideration, but not as presented, and could be sent to workshop (yellow), and then they could be reintroduced for voting by the delegates. The delegates voted unanimously in favour of Greg's new voting system, and all delegates were handed a packet of green, red, and yellow sheets of paper.
Surprisingly, as a result of the Bonser Method, policies were speedily voted on in an orderly fashion, unlike previous conventions. With the extra time available, delegates volunteered to workshop the policies that had been voted yellow.
“Bonser method” enters the record as open-knowledge reference entry. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Bonser, method and Open-knowledge can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Bonser method” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Bonser, method and Open-knowledge provides the most credible route into that argument.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Feb 9, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q107739520. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2003.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Bonser method”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Bonser method primary sources, Bonser method archive and Bonser research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Bonser method”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Bonser method” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.