In decision-making, some people think the only methodology is the majority vote.  It might be simple or weighted, twin (as in Swiss referendums), consociational (NI and Belgium) or qualified (as in the EU)... but it is always dichotomous: yes-or-no, for-or-against. It is all win-or-lose.

Other decision-making methodologies include two-round voting (Norwegian parliament, though last used in 1972; it is also used in many referendums - New Zealand, for example, had a five-option referendum in 1992); the alternative vote (which some want for the next Scottish referendum; it's like STV); serial voting (as used in Finland and Sweden); and the most accurate of all, Borda and Condorcet.

It's like a sports competition, in a way: which policy/team is the best?  Borda is a points system, like adding up the goals scored.  Condorcet is as it were a league, comparing policies (teams) two at a time, to see which is more popular.  Now usually, the team with the best goal difference is also the winner of the league: the Borda winner is usually the Condorcet winner.

Of the two, Borda is non-majoritarian.  But Borda works well only when partial voting is allowed, as per the original instructions of Jean Charles de Borda!  Hence the latest article from the de Borda Institute: The original Borda count and partial voting, which has just been published in Social Choice and Welfare.  Hopefully, the science will now change; and then the rest will follow. www.deborda.org 

Yes, a consensus can be identified, not by a majority vote, but by a preferential points system - it's called the Modified Borda Count (MBC) - by which is identified that option which has the highest average preference.  And an average, of course, involves everybody, not just a majority.