Forest wrote:
>I agree that 100 percent consensus is usually an unobtainable ideal,
>although
>it is also an absolute requirement in the case of some jury decisions.
Or to elect the Pope (assuming the standard form of election is used - I
gather that there is at least one archaic form of election that only
requires the consent of the majority). But then again, they're all locked
in a room 'till they decide. Maybe that's how all elections should be
conducted - if you don't all agree, you don't ever leave.
Craig
