If there is only one candidate in an election and the rules do not require a vote in this situation, the individual candidate is elected by unanimous acclamation or approval.  In this particular case of unanimous approval, the only way to oppose the election of a candidate is to nominate and choose someone else.  In parliamentary procedure, unanimous approval, even if usually solitary, or in the case of westminster-based parliaments, leaves the Assembly (or exit from the Senate), a situation where no member opposes a proposal. Unanimity is often used to approve the protocol.  If no correction has been made to the minutes, they are unanimously approved without formal agreement.  In this particular case of unanimous approval, there can only be opposition to the approval of the minutes if a correction is made.  Objections are sometimes used as a delaying tactic. The opponent cannot agree with the proposal under consideration, but chooses to object in order to impose a formal vote that takes time and may include a period of debate.  A number of independent resolutions can be proposed in a single application. Unanimity approval is required to consider such an application in one voice. Each member may request a separate vote on one or more of the independent resolutions.
 Until 1870, two scholars noted that unanimous approval agreements were “used with some frequency.” These early-unanimous approval agreements are “like today`s term limitation agreements that provide for the transfer of a measure to a specific date.” 5 An exchange, on 24 April 1879, illustrates the practical application of these agreements to limit debate and set the time for a vote. The exchange is a reminder of what is happening in today`s Senate. In Westminster parliaments, leaving the house or leaving the Senate is a concept similar to that of unanimous approval. If a member asks for leave to do something different from the rules, a single objection may prevail.   Given their importance to chamber operations, it is worth understanding the context or origin of unanimous approval agreements. The purpose of this report is to determine how and why these informal agreements became special orders of the Senate that became enforceable by the presiding official. This report is updated if circumstances warrant. For more information on unanimous approval agreements, see IRS Report 98-225, unanimously agreed in the Senate, by Walter J.
Oleszek; CRS Report RS20594, How Unanimous Consent Agreements Regulate Senate Floor Action, by Richard S. Beth; and CRS Report 98-310, Senate Unanimous Consent Agreements: Potential Effects on the Amendment Process, by Valerie Heitshusen. With regard to the implementation of these agreements, the presiding officials took divergent positions. A presiding official said: “It was the president`s universal decision that the president cannot get a unanimous approval agreement, but that he must be in the honour of the senators themselves. 13 On another occasion, the Speaker of the Senate asked, “Is it the joy of the Senate to enforce or not the unanimous agreements?” Senator John Sherman, R-OH, responded that the President should “enforce the agreement on this bill.” The Speaker then asked, “In similar cases, what is the joy of the Senate?” Senator Eugene Hale, R-ME, replied, “We will cross this bridge when we get there.” 14 Cons: “Vice-Presidents Charles Fairbanks and James Sherman were not shy when it came to sometimes imposing unanimous approval agreements.” 15 Each invoice receives three readings before being voted; and the president [of the Senate] gives to everyone, whether it is the first, the second or the third; readings take place on three different days, unless the Senate unanimously orders otherwise.