I am not sure if I understand you well. But to include all community members in the decision, I think leads to slower decisions. But when everyone gets to speek up this slow decision is there to stand. I feel like this is most efficient longterm.

It seems like investing a lot. But a fast government will just decide rapidly instead of wise. And end up in some kind of wave from pole to pole. While the inclusion of every member should rather lead to a very niveled governing, where rarely something needs to be adjusted, since everyone assumes, that there will be the same conclusion for the same topic, if the data are unchanged and the people included in the decision are mostly the same.

Where in a centralized small government a change of some politicians can already lead to new discussions.

I stand very much for maximum democracy to have a slow and and stable government over fast changes and lot of instability.

Since moth ethical questions do not change too much in any point of time, rules shouldn't as well. 

 We're saying the same thing. But I don't think you'll ever get perfect consensus in a large group. Having a space to speak is obviously important but eventually people have to "disagree and commit" to the decision and move forward.