Unanimity isagreement by all people in a given situation. Groups may consider unanimous decisions as a sign ofsocial,political orprocedural agreement,solidarity, and unity. Unanimity may be assumed explicitly after a unanimousvote or implicitly by a lack of objections.
| A jointPolitics andEconomics series |
| Social choice andelectoral systems |
|---|
 |
By results of combination By mechanism of combination By ballot type |
Spoiler effects Pathological response
Paradoxes ofmajority rule |
 Mathematics portal |
Practice varies as to whether a vote can be considered unanimous if some voterabstains. InRobert's Rules of Order, a "unanimous vote" is not specifically defined, although an abstention is not counted as a vote regardless of the voting threshold.[1] Also in this book, action could be taken by "unanimous consent", or "general consent", if there are no objections raised.[2] However, unanimous consent may not necessarily be the same as a unanimous vote (seeNot the same as unanimous vote).[2] In either case, it does not take into account the members who were not present.
In contrast, aUnited Nations Security Council resolution is not considered "unanimous" if a member abstains.[3] In theEuropean Union, theTreaty of Amsterdam introduced the concept of "constructive abstention", where a member[4] can abstain in a vote where unanimity is required without thereby blocking the success of the vote. This is intended to allow states to symbolically withhold support while not paralysing decision-making.[5]
The occurrence of unanimity in arepresentative democracy can be elusive with thediversity and variety of opinions in aparticipatory democracy. Unanimity is often a political endeavor. Although governments andinternational organizations may occasionally achieve unanimous decisions,popular consent is most often a more achievable aspiration for elected officials.[citation needed]
The legitimacy supposedly established by unanimity has been used by dictatorial regimes in an attempt to gain support for their position. Participants in a legislature may be coerced or intimidated into supporting the position of a dictator, with the legislature becoming little more than arubber stamp for a more powerful authority.
One-party states can restrict nominees to one per seat in elections and usecompulsory voting orelectoral fraud to create an impression of popular unanimity. The1962 North Korean parliamentary election reported a 100%turnout and a 100% vote for theWorkers' Party of Korea.[6] 100% votes have also been claimed byAhmed Sékou Touré inGuinea in 1974 and 1982,Félix Houphouët-Boigny inCôte d'Ivoire in 1985, andSaddam Hussein inIraq in 2002.[7]
Incriminal lawjury trials, many jurisdictions require a guilty verdict by a jury to be unanimous. This is not so incivil law jury trials.
TheUnited States Supreme Court ruled inRamos v. Louisiana (2020) that theSixth Amendment to the Constitution mandates unanimity in all federal and state criminal jury trials. This overturnedApodaca v. Oregon, which held that the Due Process Clause of theFourteenth Amendment did not require jury unanimity instate courts, with aconcurring opinion that theSixth Amendment to the Constitution mandates unanimity for a guilty verdict in afederal court jury trial.[8] Many U.S. state constitutions have their own provisions requiring jury unanimity for a finding of guilty; for example, article 21 of theMaryland Constitution's Declaration of Rights states:[9]
That in all criminal prosecutions, every man hath a right to be informed of the accusation against him; to have a copy of the Indictment, or charge, in due time (if required) to prepare for his defence; to be allowed counsel; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have process for his witnesses; to examine the witnesses for and against him on oath; and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury, without whose unanimous consent he ought not to be found guilty.
In England and Wales, since the Juries Act 1974, a guilty verdict may be returned where not more than 2 jurors dissent.[10]
Note 7: The result of the voting on the second and sixth preambular paragraphs of the draft resolution S/1994/280 was as follows: 14 in favour, none against and 1 abstention (United States of America); all the other paragraphs were approved unanimously.
The only constraint on thequorum is that it is not extreme, i.e., that is not equal to zero or the total size of the group. This is exactly what formally distinguishes the rule from consensus and unanimity without constructive abstention, respectively.
