I'm curious what the official term is for a nation that, while still is a democracy, has a citizen body that votes on almost everything in one way or another unanimously. Of course, everybody can make the choice they want to, but everybody is choosing to vote one way over the other without any dispute due to their similar beliefs, and that this happens regularly in the country.

And does an example of this exist / has existed in the world?

  • 1
    Are you saying everyone votes the same way because the society all has the same beliefs, or the government must be unanimous to make any changes? – lazarusL Mar 23 '16 at 16:19
  • Everybody votes the same way because of similar beliefs. I'll add that to the question. – Munesawagi Mar 23 '16 at 16:23
  • 7
    If such a legislature would exist, I would expect this voting pattern to be the result of large-scale election fraud. – Philipp Mar 23 '16 at 16:30
  • 4
    Maybe you could get that in a small, isolated community very tightly united. That said, there is few reason why such a community would schedule formal votings; after all if they all agree in everything there is no need to discuss that and (due to small size) the government could informally check if there is a consensus. – SJuan76 Mar 23 '16 at 16:43

Since people have disparate preferences, interests, and ideas about the world, it is unlikely if not impossible for a government to exist where everything is unanimous. People can even disagree on legislation because they think it goes too far or not far enough. In American politics, for example, after the Pearl Harbor Attack, the vote in congress to declare war on Japan was not unanimous.

One fictional example of what you are describing is the unification government type in the PC game Masters of Orion 2, but this relies on non-human aliens being fundamentally different from humans.

Milton Friedman's idea of "unanimity without conformity" is related to this idea. Friedman's idea is that, in a market, all parties to a transaction must unanimously consent. If I want to trade you $3000 for your old car, we have to unanimously agree that we are both better off by this transaction. In contrast, a government decision that everyone must own a specific car, would force people who don't want that car to own it. It would force conformity(everyone being the same) without unanimity(everyone agreeing to the change). Friedman uses this idea to emphasize that market transaction which are unanimous are generally preferable to government mandates, which force the will of the majority onto minorities. Obviously, externalities mess this up, but that's a different topic.


Not only there is not an example of such government that "everything is unanimous", even there is not an example of government that "everything is by will of majority."
The democracy that exist nowadays in the world (in action not in the books), is a modern dictatorship. (The rulers are probably Wealthy people that control media). it is in fact aristocracy in the name of democracy.

For example in the U.S you see two parties (Democratic-Republican). When people dislike acts of one, vote to other; 8 years later again vote to one of them. One even can see Democratic-Republican as two branches of one party. For whom these parties work? For 1% or 99%?

A quote of John F. Kennedy:

It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .