About us


A blog: " De Borda abroad."  From Belfast to Beijing and beyond... and back. Starting in Vienna with the TEDx talk, I go by bus and/or train for more debates in Belgrade, Sarajevo, Istanbul, Tbilisi, Yerevan and Tehran, before flying - sorry about that - to Urumqi in Xīnjiāng, followed by more debates in Beijing, Tianjin, Hong Kong and Taiwan... but not in Pyongyang. Then back via Mongolia (where I was an election observer last year) and Moscow (where I worked in the '80s).

I have my little fold-up Brompton with me - surely the best way of exploring any new city! So I fly hardly at all; I go by train, boat or bus if possible, and then cycle wherever in each new venue; and all with just one plastic water bottle... or that was the intention!

The story is on:  https://debordaabroad.wordpress.com/2017/09/07/de-borda-abroad/


Inclusive voting app 



(Currently under re-construction.)


The Hospital for Incurable Protestants

The Mémoire of a Collapsed Catholic

 This is the story of a pacifist in a conflict zone, in Northern Ireland and the Balkans.  Only in e-format, but only £5.15.  Available from Amazon.



About us

Visit us on Facebook

The de Borda Institute aims to promote the use of inclusive voting procedures on all contentious questions of social choice.

This applies specifically to decision-making, be it for the electorate in regional/national polls, for their elected representatives in councils and parliaments, for members of a local community group, for members of a company board, for members of a co-operative, and so on.




The director alongside the statue of Jean-Charles de Borda, capitaine et savant, in l’École Navale in Brest, 24.9.2010. Photo by Gwenaelle Bichelot. 

Powered by Squarespace
Won by One

Welcome to the home page of the de Borda Institute, a Northern Ireland-based international organisation (an NGO) which aims to promote the use of inclusive voting procedures on all contentious questions of social choice. For more information use the menu options above or feel free to contact the organisation's headquarters. If you want to check the meaning of any of the terms used, then by all means have a look at this glossary.

As shown in these attachments, there are many voting procedures for use in decision-making and even more electoral systems.  This is because, in decision-making, there is usually only one outcome; but with some electoral systems, as in any proportional ones, there can be several winners.  Sometimes, for any one voters' profile - that is, the set of all their preferences - the outcome of any count may well depend on the voting procedure used.  In this very simple example of a few voters voting on just four options, and in these two hypothetical examples on five, (word document) or (power-point) in which a few cast their preferences on five options, the profiles are analysed according to different methodologies, and the winner could be any one of all the options.  Yet all of these methodologies are called democratic!  Extraordinary!

« 2019-29 An Irish blog - PSAI | Main | 2019-27 A 4th book from Springer (Heidelberg) »

2019-28 A talk for the Open Future Festival

The Economist:  Open Future Festival, Manchester:  IF THE PROBLEM ISN’T BINARY, DON’T USE BINARY VOTING

Some questions can be pretty silly.  For example, if I ask you all, “Are you a liar?” every honest person will say ‘no’ and every liar will also say ‘no’.

And now let’s take another example: it’s time for lunch for 9 hungry children.  I have parsnips, turnips and cabbage; and, OK, the kids will decide, democratically, what’s for lunch.  First things first: a debate, and only 4 like parsnips, only 3 like turnips and only 2 like cabbage.  Oh dear.  So we’ll take a vote.  “Would you like parsnips?” I ask, “yes or no?”  A majority of 5 say ‘no’.  So the will of the kids is “no parsnips.”  “What about turnips?” – 6 vote ‘no’.  The will of the kids is “neither parsnips nor turnips”.  “Cabbage?”  Again, it’s ‘no’.

And when there’s no majority for any one thing, there is a majority against everything.  It’s another silly question.

Brexit was a silly question.  The problem was multi-optional.  The referendum could have asked, “In the EU, the EEA or the WTO?” And with, say, 9 million voters, if 4 want ‘remain’, 3 opt for EEA and 2 for WTO, there will be majorities of 5, 6 and 7 against.  If the problem isn’t binary, don’t use binary voting.

That referendum did not identify the will of the people; if it had, we would not have been arguing about it for the last three years!

To get an accurate answer in a multi-option debate, you must allow the people a multi-option choice.

The 2016 referendum was, yes, a silly question. ‘Remain-or-leave?’  It was, in effect, a ‘yes-or-no?’ question on only one of the options.  OK, there was a (small) majority against ‘remain’, against the EU option.  But if we’d had a majority vote on the EEA or the Customs Union, or the WTO or whatever, there would (almost certainly) have been majorities against each of these as well.

In 1992, New Zealand had a debate on their electoral system.  They appointed an independent commission to take submissions, hold public hearings, issue reports on proceedings and so on; so New Zealand had a multi-option debate before their referendum, which had five options.

Because our referendum was ‘yes-or-no?’ the UK has had a multi-option debate, or argument, but only after the vote. 


So what is now needed, either in parliament and/or in a second referendum, is a multi-option vote.  As in New Zealand, ask an impartial authority – the Speaker in Parliament, or an independent commission for a referendum – to listen to the debate and, on that basis, to produce a multi-option ballot of up to 5 or 6 options, and then let the people choose.

The question, then, is how shall the votes be analysed?  Do the people cast just one preference, or can they list the options in their order of preference?

So consider a society of 9 (million) debating 3 options, A, B and C, and let us assume that

4 have preferences                  A-C-B

3             ”                               B-C-A, and

2             ”                               C-B-A.


9 (million) voters




1st preference




2nd preference




3rd preference





With 4 of the 1st but 5 of the 3rd preferences, option A is rather divisive; option B has 3 of the 1st, 2 of the 2nd and 4 of the 3rd preferences, so it is a bit mixed; but option C looks pretty good – it is the 1st and/or 2nd preference of everybody, a good compromise.  But what happens in practice? 

Well, in plurality voting, we count only the 1st preferences, so the winner is A on 4, to B’s 3 and C’s 2.  In a two-round system, it’s A and B in the second round, a majority vote, and, if everybody’s preferences are the same, the winner is now B, 5 to 4.  But with a points system – 3 points for a 1st preference, 2 for a 2nd and 1 for a 3rd – the winner is indeed C on 20, while A and B each have 17.

So the answer is anything, A, B or C; it all depends on which voting procedure is used.


Voting system

9 (million) voters




Plurality voting




Two-round system




A points system*





Most politicians like majority voting: usually, they choose the question; and, usually, the question is the answer.  Usually; but not with Brexit.


The world’s first multi-option vote was in China in 1197.  New Zealand had the world’s first multi-option referendum in 1894.  And preferential voting was first advocated in Spain, 800 years ago.   

A modern democracy, both in parliaments and referendums, should have not only multi-candidate elections, but also, multi-option decision-making.

And Brexit?  The 2016 referendum should have been a multi-option vote; and any second referendum, or ‘meaningful’ vote in parliament, should also be multi-optional.          

*          The Modified Borda Count, MBC.  

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend