Allow clearence of topic with 80% Support

I took your advice on counter proposals and "dividing into groups to discuss" I am working on it.

Just dividing into groups is not going to cut it.
Take us for instance, imagine we were part of a large Pirate Party and the members of a smaller group that was formed for discussion on Internet Freedom. Would we have reached a consensus?
Now you may have very legitimate reasons against Internet Freedom. And the most members may disagree with you. 90% of the groups will reach consensus and the proposal will be accepted. You will have no way of influencing the decision making process.

I understand your aim was to be scalable. I guess my method lacks that ability. But i am working on it.

Forget Internet freedom for a second.
Imagine there is a proposal that everyone divided into groups are working on. But you feel that you can give a better proposal that can make everyone happy (a win-win scenario). But the method you gave has no way of giving that feedback. Its either "consensus" or "no consensus" for a group. You also gave no way for inter-group communication. So your ideas will not reach the masses. 90% of the groups will reach consensus and your group wont be able to participate as according to your rules:
2) Every unit must have 100% consensus within it to vote.
And you obviously will block it.
Counter-proposals make it mandatory for someone to give constructive criticism. Its like saying "we can do better than this proposal, here is mine".
Otherwise it all becomes like "This proposal is bad, here is my proposal. Too bad you all do not accept it, but i am going to block your proposal too"
If you have no counter-proposals, the minority is freed from any burden of reaching consensus.

There is a collective software called crabgrass which addresses your concerns about inter-group information exchange. No point reinventing the wheel.

In any majority system the intelligent minority (or hardworking minority) will invariably be shut out by the mediocre / lazy majority. That is the by-product of any democracy.

Are we just interested in talking for the sake of it? Why are we deviating from something we all agreed on? I thought our first agenda was to fix Pirate Points? Am I wrong in that understanding? Can't we find even one point that all 5 of us agree to?

Lets try it for 10 points and if someone deliberately veto all 10 points, lets start from scratch without that person. It is not right to base our processes based on imaginary villains. That is how every single freedom is taken out from us. We have real 5 people working together and the aim of this group is to form the constitution. In constitution we can set 80% or 80% clearance for amendments, policies etc if all 5 of us here agrees.