Abstract
This article argues that, during repeated unanimous consensus makings, evaluating strategies that assign a whole weight to a specific individual are evolutionarily stable. Evaluating strategies represent ways of evaluating alternatives with respect to others' utilities. I derive the following three conclusions: first, when a consensus is reached by two individuals, the maximin strategy evolves rather than the utilitarian strategy or the selfish strategy. Second, this result is robust for consensuses comprising two or more individuals. Finally, in general, concerns for a specific individual evolve.
