Everyone talks about how the majority could just split away and do what they want to do anyway.....completely ignoring the reality of possession's that are held by a collective 'moral agent'. When a collective controls property, especially when operating as anti-capitalists in a capitalist society, the argument that we would have the freedom to break away ignores certain realities and practicalities.
Personally I would much rather voluntarily subject myself to a majoritarian process, so long as it only has authority over voluntary adherents.....If I was one person I would feel really shitty blocking 20 others who all disagreed with me, just because I have Veto power.....and Likewise, if just one person blocked for personal reasons something that 20 others really wanted to do.....I would say they were behaving like a tyrant, using consensus to put themselves in a position of authority over others.....and how would they deal with group property if the 20 wanted to break way from the 1 over that disagreement? A super majority vote in that case would be so much smoother than separate votes to reach consensus, another vote to eliminate the member which can fail if just one other person blocks....and so on...Its a potential nightmare in large groups.
But I will agree that its not inherently tyranical. It can actually work out ok and be highly egalitarian in small groups with the right people....like no more than 3-9. Groups capable of running a factory or public utilities could not possibly adhere to strict consensus and keep the utilities running.
None of the successful Anarchist movements, such as the Spanish Syndicalists, used a strict adherence to 100% consensus decision making....This is a fairly new trend where groups consider consensus the only viable alternative to democratic centralism. Its not historically supported, except that adherence to democratic process must always be decentralized and by voluntary association.
Using the housing co-op model of consensus easily turns into a nightmare with large groups, and eventually somebody will use their veto power in a way that is either exploitative or tyrannical if the group is large enough and stays together long enough.