Have you looked into Sociocracy?
It may be a bit too heavy and formal for small organizations, but you can pick and choose from its features to suit your community.
Basically, it is a system of "decision circles" that typically concern one aspect of a community. These circles send delegates to other circles that have intersecting interests.
We adapted this to our concept of Stewardship. A "steward" speaks for a resource that cannot speak for itself. Generally, you want the person with the most knowledge about a situation to be empowered to make decisions about that situation.
The "circles" are typically small, with 5-9 people max. This is the largest number that I think one should attempt to use consensus with! I have seen "pseudo-consensus" destroy communities!
In consensus, people are supposed to "go along" unless they have a "principled objection." But what the heck is that? In Sociocracy, the idea is supposed to be, "Can I get along with this?" This is a much lower bar to pass, and the smaller number of people mean it is generally more streamlined.
To take your points individually:
1) Majority vote. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep, voting on what's for dinner. To be purposely provocative, democracy doesn't work, and never has. You simply end up with two halves, one that is self-satisfied that they got their way, and the other that is resentful and increasingly bitter. In community, you need a process that keeps people friendly with each other!
2) Take a stand. Has all the disadvantages of democracy, without the advantage of having at least 51% buy-in! Even more resentment. You need to at least obtain "buy in" to your leadership. (See below.)
3) Find new people. Ugh. How much time and effort will that take? Almost anything seems better.
In our Stewardship model, Stewards are elected for their expertise in certain areas, and are empowered to make routine decisions about those areas. Get your buy-in up-front, before having to "take a stand!" And even then, if your decision impacts the areas of other Stewards, you'd better consult with them.
For example, I'm the "Finance Steward." I am empowered to make decisions like, "Should we use QuickBooks or a home-grown SQL accounting system?" If you put that to a vote, most people would be bored to tears, and yet, they would feel it their duty to weigh in, no matter how little they knew about it! On the other hand, if we're going to spend several thousand dollars on a project, I have a duty to at least collaborate with others who have funding needs — but not with everyone!
We strive to make everyone a Steward of something. This helps with buy-in, as everyone gets to experience the joys and demands of leadership, and they are thus less likely to create problems for other Stewards.
Bottom line: involve many people in your decisions who have intersecting interests, but avoid formally involving all of them, which, as others pointed out, is unavoidable for certain classes of decisions. "Should we sell the farm we all live on?" That's a decision for everyone. "What should I do about this hang-nail?" I've seen five-hour consensus meetings on such things!