Editing Unanimity

{{short description|Agreement by all people in a situation}}
{{redirect|Unanimous}}
{{Wiktionary|unanimity|unanimous}}
'''Unanimity''' is [[Consensus decision-making|agreement]] by all people in a given situation. Groups may consider unanimous decisions as a sign of [[social]], [[political]] or [[wikt:procedural|procedural]] agreement, [[solidarity]], and unity. Unanimity may be assumed explicitly after a unanimous [[voting|vote]] or implicitly by a lack of objections. It does not necessarily mean uniformity and can sometimes be the opposite of [[majority rule|majority]] in terms of outcomes.{{cn|date=November 2022}}

==Voting==
Practice varies as to whether a vote can be considered unanimous if some voter [[abstention|abstains]]. In ''[[Robert'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.<ref>{{Cite web|url = http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#6|title = Frequently Asked Questions about RONR (Question 6)|access-date = 2015-12-27|website = The Official Robert's Rules of Order Web Site|publisher = The Robert's Rules Association}}</ref> Also in this book, action could be taken by "[[unanimous consent]]", or "general consent", if there are no objections raised.<ref name="Robert-etal-2011">{{Cite book|title = Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised|last = Robert|first = Henry M.|publisher = Da Capo Press|year = 2011|isbn = 978-0-306-82020-5|location = Philadelphia, PA|pages = 54–56|edition = 11th|display-authors=etal}}</ref> However, unanimous consent may not necessarily be the same as a unanimous vote (see [[Unanimous consent#Not the same as unanimous vote|Not the same as unanimous vote]]).<ref name="Robert-etal-2011" /> In either case, it does not take into account the members who were not present.

In contrast, a [[United Nations Security Council resolution]] is not considered "unanimous" if a member abstains.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/361eea1cc08301c485256cf600606959/4690652a351277438525634c006dce10!OpenDocument |title=Resolution 904 |date=18 March 1994 |publisher=[[United Nations]] |access-date=2009-01-30 |quote=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. |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080210062143/http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/361eea1cc08301c485256cf600606959/4690652a351277438525634c006dce10!OpenDocument |archive-date=February 10, 2008 }}
</ref> In the [[European Union]], the [[Treaty of Amsterdam]] introduced the concept of "constructive abstention", where a member<ref>{{Cite web |date=2015-03-29 |title=Making abstention constructive: A call for reform in the European Council |url=https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/making-abstention-constructive-call-reform-european-council |access-date=2025-02-21 |website=[[VoxEU]] |language=en |quote=The only constraint on the [[quorum]] 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.}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite book |last=Philippart |first=E. |author2=Monika Sie Dhian Ho  |title=Nederland en de Europese grondwet |editor=Jacques Pelkmans |editor2=Monika Sie |editor3=Dhian Ho |editor4=Bas Limonard |publisher=[[Amsterdam University]] Press |location=Amsterdam |date=2003 |pages=128–136 |chapter=Flexibility and the new constitutional treaty of the European Union |isbn=90-5356-656-2}}
</ref>

===Democracies===
The occurrence of unanimity in a [[representative democracy]] can be elusive with the [[Diversity (politics)|diversity]] and variety of opinions in a [[participatory democracy]]. Unanimity is often a political endeavor. Although governments and [[international organization]]s may occasionally achieve unanimous decisions, [[popular consent]] is most often a more achievable aspiration for elected officials.{{Citation needed|reason=This claim needs a reliable source; Agreements do occur between political parties, governments and international organizations, infrequent it may seem nevertheless.|date=October 2012}}

===Dictatorships===
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 a [[Rubber stamp (politics)|rubber stamp]] for a more powerful authority.

[[One-party state]]s can restrict nominees to one per seat in elections and use [[compulsory voting]] or [[electoral fraud]] to create an impression of popular unanimity. The [[1962 North Korean parliamentary election]] reported a 100% [[Voter turnout|turnout]] and a 100% vote for the [[Workers' Party of Korea]].<ref>
{{cite book |last=McFarlan |first=Donald |author2=Norris McWhirter |author2-link=Norris McWhirter |title=[[Guinness Book of World Records]] |publisher=[[Bantam Books]] |date=1990 |page=[https://archive.org/details/1990guinnessbook00mcfa/page/361 361] |chapter=Most One-Sided Elections |isbn=0-553-28452-5 }}
</ref> 100% votes have also been claimed by [[Ahmed Sékou Touré]] in [[Guinea]] in 1974 and 1982, [[Félix Houphouët-Boigny]] in [[Côte d'Ivoire]] in 1985, and [[Saddam Hussein]] in [[Iraq]] in 2002.<ref>
{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37348-2002Oct16?language=printer |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200413113436/https://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37348-2002Oct16/?language=printer |url-status=dead |archive-date=2020-04-13 |title=Claiming 100 Percent Vote for Hussein, Iraq Hails Its 'Democracy' |last=Chandrasekaran |first=Rajiv |date=2002-10-17 |newspaper=[[Washington Post]] |page=A14 |access-date=2009-01-30}}
</ref>

===Juries===
In [[criminal law]] [[jury trial]]s, many jurisdictions require a guilty verdict by a jury to be unanimous. This is not so in [[Civil law (common law)|civil law]] jury trials.

The [[United States Supreme Court]] ruled in [[Ramos v. Louisiana|''Ramos v. Louisiana'' (2020)]] that the [[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Sixth Amendment to the Constitution]] mandates unanimity in all federal and state criminal jury trials. This overturned ''[[Apodaca v. Oregon]]'', which held that the Due Process Clause of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]] did not require jury unanimity in [[State court (United States)|state courts]], with a [[concurring opinion]] that the [[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Sixth Amendment to the Constitution]] mandates unanimity for a guilty verdict in a [[United States federal courts|federal court]] jury trial.<ref>''[[Apodaca v. Oregon]]'', {{ussc|406|404|1972}}</ref> Many U.S. state constitutions have their own provisions requiring jury unanimity for a finding of guilty; for example, article 21 of the [[Maryland Constitution]]'s Declaration of Rights states:<ref>
{{cite web |url=http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/msa/mdmanual/43const/html/00dec.html#20 |title=Maryland Constitution - Declaration of Rights |date=4 November 2008 |publisher=Maryland Government |access-date=2009-01-30}}
</ref>{{quotation|
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.}}

[[Jury (England and Wales)|In England and Wales]], since the Juries Act 1974, a guilty verdict may be returned where not more than 2 jurors dissent.<ref>
{{cite web |url=http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1974/cukpga_19740023_en_1#l1g19 |title=Juries Act 1974 (c.23), §17: Majority verdicts |work=UK Statute Law Database |publisher=[[Office of Public Sector Information]] |access-date=2009-01-30}}
</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Consensus decision-making]]
*[[Liberum veto]]
*[[Unanimous consent]]
*[[Unanimous fairness]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Unanimity| ]]
[[Category:Voting]]
[[Category:Group decision-making]]