“Love your neighbor,” and claim democracy, and in a contradictory, hypocritical mode, demands a vote (‘for’ or) against your neighbor. In contrast, Hindus and Buddhists, and even Chinese atheists often view them differently.
Domination
- …People who don’t have an opposing pair [are] It’s easy to release from bondage. ” (śrīmadbhagavadgītā. 2024, India, Guitapress, Chap 5 [3]p 78);
- “…The non-ductility of good and evil [is] The state of Buddha. “Longchenpa, a Buddhist monk in the Ninima tradition. (P. Christiaan Klieger. Tibet – The history between dreams and nation-states. )
- “Western civilization is built on the philosophical theological tradition of binary antagonism,” cited by jiang Shigong, Peter Frankopan. New Silk RoadBloomsbury, 2019, p 153).
But given the international domination of the Western way and the fact that many Asian countries are currently using majority votes, they may be wrong too.
division
Around 400 years after it was first deployed by the Greeks, China began to use the majority votes only in Imperial Courts. Michael Wood discusses The Chinese Story Ancient Greece almost certainly had “contact between China and China in the late 4th century BC.” It is unclear whether these contacts will involve discussions regarding the use of votes.
Nevertheless, starting with Pliny the Young in Rome in 105, many have realized that binary voting for non-binary issues is unwise – even if they’re not actually crazy!
Therefore, the innovation of multiple votes first used three– 1197 option vote by the Chinese (or rather, Julchen) government to resolve the issue of war with Mongolia. Much later, in 1894, New Zealand had the first of several multi-option referendums. Five– 1992 options vote.
Other multi-optional methodologies include approval voting (1268), Boulder Count Point System (1433), 2-round voting (1775), Condorcerule (1785), and alternative or single transferable voting AV or STV (1821). ” .
However, Napoleon and countless other politicians wanted to use a system they could control, so they maintained or reintroduced divisive and exclusive majority votes. It is used everywhere.
I’m hopeless
The Bolsheviks used it. In fact, this term means “member of the majority.” But that was a small majority. In 1903, 39 members of the Social Democrat Workers Party of Russia voted for the relatively minor issue, 19:17:3, “‘ang’ or ‘abstain.” Therefore, there was no majority (Bolshinstvo), only three minority (Menshinstvo), and the runner-up was called the Mensheviks.
In China, Maozedun urged the majority to “smash the minority.” Then, “about 3.6 million party members were labelled or purged as right-wingers,” and later again, in countless village courts, binary votes were used during the so-called big leap… as a text of death.
Furthermore, many votes are still used today. For example, in 1979, the Chinese Communist Party Standing Committee reportedly voted for Singleton when discussing students at Tiananmen Square. It was a military intervention “yes” or “no”… as if there were only two options possible…and it “won” with just one vote.
The majority of votes are also enacted by the North Korean Constitution. That council meets only once a year, so it is not used frequently.
In summary, binary voting is insufficient, often inaccurate and absolutely hopelessly inappropriate. Inter Ariacurrently in use on both sides of the new Cold War. Still, it often occurs in countless conflicts, domestic, industrial, political parties, government, government and international.
favorite
At a meeting of police officers in the Baku’s COP29 (attended by this author), the United Nations accepted that nearly 200 countries could not achieve compromises by majority vote.
But they have not chosen a compromised decision-making method, if not in fact possible, despite the fact that exactly such a procedure already exists.
Here is: Democratic debate that precedes the vote should aim to achieve. This is not a strict choice of just two options, but rather a short list of options, usually between 4 and 6. In voting for such a vote:
- Cast one preference (and say nothing about the other options) she scores one point for her favorites (and nothing left).
- Cast two preferences, she gets two favorites and one second choice.
and
- Those who cast all five preferences will earn 5 points on their favorites, 4 points on their second choice, and 3 points on their third choice.
federation
The difference is always one point. She abstains from doing so shall have no effect on the final outcome. She partially participates shall have a partial influence on the outcome. On the other hand, those who submit a full vote must have a full impact.
Voters (x) th However, the configuration option always gets only 1 point (x+1)th than her Priority option, whether she cast it or not (x+1) th I like it.
The system is fair and fair. The effect is to encourage voters to state not only their favorite options, but also their compromised options. And if everyone does that, a collective compromise is easily identified: an option with most points.
This procedure, the revised MBC of Count Boulder, was first conceived in 1770 by French scientist Jean Charles de Boulder.
Peace is possible. Northern Ireland doesn’t have to do that Which one England or Irish; it could be under the joint authorities or a wise (Wales, Ireland, Scotland, England) Union.
compromise
The discussion is a lot of enthusiast. Therefore, voting, a way to solve the problem, is multi-light and ideally should be a priority.
In 1991, when Ukraine voted for independence, all districts (Oblast) Most voted in favor with over 80%.
Only one of Crimea produced close results. This is a majority of 54%. Therefore, it would have been wise, not to mention in 1991 to allow Crimea to have joint authority or such a compromise.
Israel’s democratic system means that Arabs, currently 20% of the population, have only 10% of the parliamentary lawmakers and 0% of the government.
Criticism
However, as mentioned above, democracy is for everyone, not just for the majority. Therefore, not only exceptions to the conflict zone, but the sharing of party power must be an international democratic norm.
With Brazilian COP30 and all future police officers, no one should have a veto. The basis is the exact opposite of the consensus. Instead, everyone should agree to accept decision-making methods that allow them to identify the best possible compromise.
That’s the problem. Domestic and internationally, many individual politicians and certain countries don’t want to compromise. Instead, and therefore, they often refuse to use decision-making methods that respond to compromise. From Napoleon and before, “As far.
Then, a respectable soul like Ramon Lulu – (in 1299 he spoke of preferential votes) and the Nicholas Cardinal of Kuusa – (invented what became known as the Border Number in 1433) – would the religions and secular world of this world come together to criticize the majority votes and propose a more continuous form?
This author
Peter Emerson is the director De Borda Institute. At the time of writing, Peter was in Brompton, China, studying the use of binary voting, particularly in village councils.
