These include Pliny the Younger, who spoke about plural voting in 105 AD. Today, it is used in the Danish parliament, Folketing (Although there are only three choices), this is no different from the voting system used in the Austrian PoL.is event.
Nicholas of Cusa also proposed a preferential points system for voting in 1433. This system, later named Borda Count BC, was used for the first participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre.
Jean-Charles de Borda then developed what is now called the Modified Borda Count MBC in 1770, although some still refer to this procedure as “priority.” The term priority comes from a workshop on Northern Ireland that this reviewer gave at a conference. In 1984 he became a member of the European Green Party in Dover.
binary
It works like this: In a 5-choice vote, people who vote for only one choice get 1 point for that choice. She votes for two and gets two points for her favorite and one point for two.n.d. choice; and so on; so someone who casts all 5 settings gets 5 points for favorite and 4 points for 2.n.d. options etc. The choice that earns the most points wins.
Therefore, if I want to win my choice, I need my supporters to give me their first choice…with every vote! You may also need a second and/or third choice, but a fourth or fifth choice is very unlikely.
Therefore, it is suggested here that MBC corrects “our political discourse.” [which] “Different factions are yelling at each other, polarizing the situation.” However, the author notes that both MBC and the Condorcet rule have other preferential treatment that could encourage constructive “polylogue.” is not mentioned.
he is not alone. Most parliaments use majority rule. So do some CAs. Surely it was prescribed dale (Irish Parliament) as set out in the terms of reference of the 2016 CA. But of course, abortion is not an either-or option.
Furthermore, in modern times, pluralist No debate in society should be binary…and neither can it be, if the question is framed correctly. An extreme example is the closed dichotomy, “Is the death penalty yes or no?” This problem might be replaced by a more open question: “How should society deal with a convicted murderer?” Even the perhaps binary question, “Which side of the road should I drive on?” – although it was “solved” with two instead of two. three Choices in the 1955 Swedish referendum: ‘Left’, ‘Right’, ‘Blank’.
premium
However, the Dail provided for a majority vote. So the Irish CA broke the terms of reference without saying anything. multi-Optional step.
As befits the overall discussion of CA, the authors often refer to this and other gatherings, but they are not necessarily related to ecological issues.
The British Columbia CA on Electoral Reform was one of them…but that CA was only instigated by people who wanted PR-STV (and the people wanted it) in the name of public participation. Yes, so there was little or no discussion. Vote for the other system (preferentially).
Therefore, those who advocate a more consensual voting system (like this reviewer) were not welcome, and his proposal for a quota-borda system QBS was therefore ignored.
The author goes on to state that “the logic of elections emphasizes political competition and party differentiation.” Again, this is too simple.
celebration
First Pass the Post in the UK and US do this, but Switzerland’s PR Open List system and Ireland’s PR-STV are much more accurate, and it is important to note that the This has led to the success of the Green Party.
Simply put, FPTP forces voters to take “sides” while PR-STV I allow it In order for them to cross party divides, and the above QBS is actually based on MBC, encourage That’s what they do.
He also mentions the Consensus Conference, but does not mention the Peace Initiative on the Troubles (New Ireland Group) held in Belfast in 1986. People’s Congress. Clearly, for an audience of over 200 people, including almost everyone from Sinn Féin to the UDA (Ulster Defense Association), the use of majority voting would not have been helpful in the least… In the MBC prototype, a consensus was found .
Pluralism is certainly possible. There is no doubt that both the authors and this reviewer look forward to the day when CAs everywhere can become more effective. Indeed, accurate democratic selection, a significant number of participants (which vary from small to large jurisdictions, and in some cases need to exceed 100 people), and a CA that exceeds the consensus minimum standards In preferential voting, as currently enabled by the decision, the “consensus coefficient” is the total points of the option divided by the theoretical maximum) – the above decision could be considered binding There is.
In this way, CA can be more closely intertwined with national politics and thus express the author’s “opposition”, i.e., decision-making. Either in the elected chamber or Perhaps sorted CA with referendum would be two or three complementary methodologies. Preferential decisions may be made either in Parliament and/or in the CA and/or in a multiple choice referendum. Such an overall policy may give the author further reason for praise.
this author
Dr. Peter Emerson De Borda Institute.
