On one end of the spectrum lies the idea of majority consensus, which drives the functioning of our society at large. On the other end is the Paradox of Unanimity, challenging the reliability of unanimous decisions in situations where perfect agreement is unlikely.
This paradox explains why incredibly consistent agreement in conditions where disagreement is naturally expected, may point out to a systematic bias.
As counterintuitive as it may seem, the unanimity paradox has wide implications in spheres ranging from science to law and politics.
An ideal example is the 2002 presidential referendum held by Saddam Hussein, claiming a 100% voter turnout, all supposedly voting in favour of his term extension. Absurd, right?
So should we always strive for perfect harmony and consistency? Or is our confidence in unanimity ill- founded? Watch the video to know more.
Comments