Most countries use binary voting in decision-making, be they democracies, theocracies and/or autocracies. It is the oldest form of decision-making ever devised, and was first used by the Greeks, 2,500 years ago, followed by the Chinese a couple of centuries later.
Pliny the Younger questioned it in the year 105, and suggested plurality voting, and quite independently, the latter was first used in governance by the Chinese, by the Jurchens of the Jīn Dynasty (金朝), in 1197. In 1299 in Europe, then only recently out of the Dark Ages, Ramón Llull suggested preferential voting; in 1433, Nicholas Cusanus proposed a points system, today's Borda Count BC; and Jean-Charles de Borda developed today's Modified Borda Count MBC in 1770. It was adopted by l'Académie des Sciences in 1784... but then a new guy came along; he didn't like this 'consensus nonsense', so he brought back the majority vote. Hence France's binary referendum of 1803, in which this same guy chose the option, he chose himself, and thus he became l'empereur: Napoléon, a 'democratic dictator' and the first of a few: Mussolini, Hitler, Duvalier et al.
Sadly, the world still uses binary voting. In 1903, the All-Russian Social Democrats voted 19 'for' 17 'against' and 3 abstentions: Vladimir Ilych Lenin pretended this 19 was a majority (bolshinstvo - большинство) - but it was only the largest minority - and called his lot the Bolsheviks; the 17, the second largest minority (menshinstvo) became the Mensheviks.
Iran became an Islamic Republic in 1979, after a referendum, binary, in which the Shi'a voted by over 90%, but the Sunnis abstained, (just like the Catholics abstained in Northern Ireland in the 1973 border poll, or the Orthodox in Croatia's independence referendum of 1991, or the Muslims in Nagorno-Karabakh in 1994, and so on and so on, ad nauseam.)
In China in 1989, with tens of thousands of students in Tiān'ānmén Square, the Chinese Communist Party Standing Committee under Dèng Xiǎopíng took a binary vote on military intervention... and, it is said, it passed by one vote.
Simple and weighted majority voting is also prescribed in the constitution of North Korea, Article 97... not that it's used very often: the parliament meets only once a year.
Despite this horrible history, people everywhere - in business, law and civil society, as well as in politics - continue to use majority voting. The debate might be multi-optional - like Brexit - but the UK took a yes-or-no vote on only one option, and pretended the outcome was democratic. "All the wars in the former Yugoslavia started with a referendum," (Oslobodjenje, Sarajevo's famous newspaper, 7.2.1999). The same now applies to Ukraine. And the genocide in Rwanda was initiated with the slogan, "Rubanda Nyamwinshi," 'we are the majority.' Majority voting, then, is ubiquitous... and sometimes iniquitous.
A majority vote can identify the will of a majority, they say... or maybe just the will of he - it's usually a he - who wrote the question. In contrast, the MBC can identify the option which has the highest average preference; this methodology is therefore inclusive, literally! If it were to be adopted, the words 'majority', 'minority' and 'veto' might fade from the political lexicon... even in the Middle East.