2025-06 NÁNKĀI (the speech)

BINARY VOTING: MAYBE WE ALL GOT IT WRONG

“Yin and Yang, a cosmic duality of opposing but complimentary… forces… lie at the centre of Chinese mystical thought.”

2          I arrived in Yúnnán in January, and from Shangri-La (Xiānggélǐlā) 香格里拉 headed eastwards, visiting many local councils on the way.  Your electoral systems vary enormously: some villages (nóngcūn农村) use binary voting, others opt for plurality voting, and a few prefer approval voting; all have elections, but some elect the entire committee, a few exceptions use exams or let the cūnzhǎng村长 choose the other members.  

3          On decision-making, however, everyone uses the binary system.  But so does every democracy: I quote from a debate in Guǎngxī, “少数服从多数” shǎoshù fúcóng duōshù, “the minority obeys the majority.”

So the basic premise of decision-making, be it in the United Nations, in nation-states of all varieties – democratic, theocratic and autocratic – in business and elsewhere, is one and the same: majority rule.  Exceptions are few.  One of the latter involves the United Nations’ COP gatherings – Conferences of the Parties; last year’s COP29 was in Baku (and so was I); they accept that you cannot get the consensus of 200 nations by using majority votes, but they still haven’t considered any better methodologies.  So it is that early every nation uses binary ballots.

4          This is true even in Asia where, as you may know, majority voting was used over 2,000 years ago, albeit only in the Imperial Court.  It is one of the world’s few inventions which was not Chinese, for majority voting started in Greece, 2,500 years ago, where it worked quite well; there were no political parties in those days.  

            One of the first to realise that this binary voting nevertheless has its limitations was a Roman, Pliny the Younger in the year 105, and hence his plurality voting.  But Europe was entering the Dark Ages, and the first country to use a plurality vote in governance – (as far as I know) 

5          – was China: 金朝, Jīncháo, in 1197.  Sadly, it was used only once, for very shortly afterwards, came Chinggis Khan.  Nevertheless, it was a vote of 84 members of the government, and they voted on three options: war against Mongolia, an alternating policy of war and then no war, and thirdly, a policy of peace.  The vote was 5:33:46.

6          The world, however, remained and remains binary.  “Western civilisation is built on a philosophical-theological tradition of binary antagonisms,” Jiàng Shìgōng 强世功 of 中央民族大学  Zhōngyāngmínzúdàxué (Chinese University for Nationalities).  But many political leaders were binary, not least Máo Zédōng, for example, in his anti-rightist campaign of 1957-9, 反右运动 FǎnyòuYùndòng.  

Others, however, have long since tried to move beyond the binary bind: “…the nonduality of right and wrong [is] the state of a buddha,”[1] (and this is also seen in Hinduism).  

            Alas, in the world at large, majoritarianism was and still is dominant… and some majority votes are crazy: “Are you Protestant or Catholic?” was a cause of violence in Northern Ireland… but both are Christian; they are not opposites. “Are you Sunni or Shi’a?” led to wars in Syria and Yemen – yet both are Islamic.

7          Likewise, it would be crazy to choose either ‘yin’ or ‘yang’ by a majority vote.  I would also suggest that there are some pretty strong similarities between communism and capitalism, another nonduality: for one, they are both very European in origin; secondly, as we’ve just been implying, they both use majority voting; and thirdly, they are both creeds based on greed, the exploitation of nature for the gratification of today’s generations. 

* * * * *

           So what I’m going to do today is to talk about majority voting.  It is primitive, exclusive, often divisive, always adversarial and, at worst, in Northern Ireland, the Balkans, Rwanda, Ukraine and throughout the Middle East, to name just a few instances, it is a cause of war.  Yet it is seldom questioned, anywhere.  

Indeed, in the villages of China, the councils of Europe, the parliaments and congresses of the world, if a vote has been taken, many people just sort of assume that therefore the outcome of that vote is fair… and even accurate!

I am therefore going to start with a simple example, to show how different methods of voting – all of which are used and regarded as fair – can produce quite different answers.  

MAJORITARIANISM

8          Consider, if you will, 15 political scientists going for a meal.  As you know, in China, every type of food is on the table; the only question which might arise is this, “What shall we have to drink?”  And maybe there’s a choice of four options: pútaojiǔ, báijiǔ, píjiǔ and shuǐ.  So what happens if opinions are divided, if there’s no majority for anything?  If 6 want pútaojiǔ, 4 choose báijiǔ, 3 prefer píjiǔ and 2 opt for shuǐ.  So they consider their preferences.

                        Table              I                      A VOTERS’ PROFILE 

PREFERENCES	NUMBER OF VOTERS
	6	4	3	2
1st	pútaojiǔ	báijiǔ	píjiǔ	shuǐ
2nd	shuǐ	shuǐ	shuǐ	píjiǔ
3rd	píjiǔ	píjiǔ	báijiǔ	báijiǔ
4th	báijiǔ	pútaojiǔ	pútaojiǔ	pútaojiǔ

9          And now let us analyse this profile, for several methodologies are available.  

10        Plurality Voting is like the US, the UK’s and India’s electoral system.  You count only the 1^st preferences, in which case, the outcome is pútaojiǔ 6, báijiǔ 4, píjiǔ 3 and shuǐ 2, so the winner is 

pútaojiǔ on a score of 6, which is not a majority, only the largest minority.

11        France uses a two-round system in elections: if nothing has a majority, they hold a second round between the two leading options – in this instance, pútaojiǔ and báijiǔ on 6 and 4; and if everyone’s preferences stay the same, the winner is now báijiǔ on a score of 9… which is a majority. 

12        Ireland prefers a knock-out system, the alternative vote AV or single transferable vote STV, which America calls ranked choice voting RCV.  Again, if nothing has a majority, the least popular, shuǐ, is eliminated and its 2 votes go to its 2^nd preference, which is píjiǔ.  The scores are now pútaojiǔ 6, báijiǔ 4, píjiǔ 5.  Still nothing with a majority, so the next smallest is out as well, báijiǔ, and its 4 votes go (not to shuǐ, which has been eliminated, but) to píjiǔ which therefore wins on a score of 9… and this is also a majority.   

13        There is also a points system, the Modified Borda Count MBC; of the systems analysed here, it is the only voting procedure which takes all the preferences cast by all the voters into account, always.  With 4 points for a 1^stpreference, 3 for a 2^nd, etc., the scores are:

pútaojiǔ           24        +          0          +          0          +          9          =          33

báijiǔ               16        +          0          +          10        +          6          =          32

píjiǔ                 12        +          6          +          20        +          0          =          38  

and      shuǐ                 8          +          39        +          0          +          0          =          47 

so the winner is shuǐ on 47.

                        Table              II                     THE DEMOCRATIC WILL 

METHODOLOGY	RESULTS
	winner	runner-up	…	loser
Plurality voting	pútaojiǔ 6	báijiǔ 4	píjiǔ 3	shuǐ 2
Two-round	báijiǔ 9	pútaojiǔ 6	-	-
Alternative/Single Transferable vote	píjiǔ 9	pútaojiǔ 6	-	-
Modified Borda  Count MBC	shuǐ 47	píjiǔ 38	pútaojiǔ 33	báijiǔ 32

14        In other words, the totally democratic and fair answer is either pútaojiǔ or báijiǔ or píjiǔ or shuǐ.  It could be anything!  For this particular voters’ profile, it all depends on the voting system used.  

15        As Jozef Stalin used to say, “It’s not the people who vote that count; it’s the people who count the votes.”

DECISION-MAKING

16        It’s time for a bit of theory.  There are two types of majority voting: singletons and pairings.  -     With a singleton – “Option X, yes-or-no?” – there is only one option (or candidate); this is the electoral system used in North Korea, and the decision-making system of pretty well everywhere.  

-           While a pairing offers two options (or candidates) – “Option X or option Y?”  

With singletons, you might find there is a majority against everything; in contrast, a pairing always produces a definite answer… though in a multi-option debate, whether this is actually the democratic will of the voters remains unknown. 

17        So now let’s take a different and simpler example of just 13 professors, and we’ll forget the two whose 1^stpreference was shuǐ.  In democratic practice, the ancient Greeks decided, if there are three options on the table – a motion, an amendment and the status quo – we first debate the amendment and then, in a binary vote, we adopt or reject it.  Next, we debate and have a second binary vote on (either the original motion or as amended), the so-called substantive versus the status quo; and hence the decision.  

the motion

v                                  =          the substantive

the amendment                       v                                  =          the decision

                                                the status quo

Let’s now see what happens:

18                    Table              III                   ANOTHER PROFILE  

PREFERENCES	NUMBER OF PROFESSORS
	6	4	3
1st	pútaojiǔ	báijiǔ	píjiǔ
2nd	báijiǔ	píjiǔ	pútaojiǔ
3rd	píjiǔ	pútaojiǔ	báijiǔ

So       

pútaojiǔ           is more popular than                  báijiǔ               by        9:4

báijiǔ                                                               píjiǔ                           10:3

píjiǔ                                                                 pútaojiǔ                       7:6       

and

pútaojiǔ           >          báijiǔ               >          píjiǔ     >          pútaojiǔ           >         and it goes round and round in circles ……… for ever!

19        Now the order of voting could be:

            pútaojiǔ 

                v                                  =          píjiǔ

            píjiǔ                                                v                                  =          báijiǔ   

                                                                báijiǔ   

in which case, the winner is báijiǔ.  But if we have:

            píjiǔ 

               v                                    =          báijiǔ

            báijiǔ                                                v                                  =          pútaojiǔ

                                                                pútaojiǔ

the democratic decision is pútaojiǔ.  Or if we have

            báijiǔ   

               v                                  =          pútaojiǔ           

            pútaojiǔ                                            v                                  =          píjiǔ

                                                               píjiǔ

the collective consensus is píjiǔ.

In other words, we get different answers.  Accodingly, in majority voting, if and when there is not a majority in favour of any one option, the chair who decides the order of voting has total control of the debate… and of the outcome.  And in those situations where there is a majority in favour of something which the chair doesn’t like, he or she can introduce another option to split that majority, and then again have total control.  In a nutshell, majority voting is manipulable; some politicians are manipulative; and many majority decisions – like the UK’s 2016 vote on Brexit – have been manipulated.

A NON-MAJORITARIAN METHODOLOGY

20        Imagine now a better form of decision-making.  In a land of over 50 minorities, or in a parliament of more than one party, or in a party of more than one person, or the COP30 gathering next year in Brazil, or in a multi-party parliament, there will always be different opinions and nuances.  

Consider a congress, a parliament, an assembly or a UN gathering of 200 countries/representatives/members/delegates/persons.  Initially, then, there may be up to 200 proposals ‘on the table’, but the small guys will join together, and the number of options will soon be less.  If need be, a multi-option ballot in which everyone casts their top six preferences could identify the top twenty options.  Then let the debate begin.

            Motions can be amended, options can be combined, a few might even be eliminated, but only if the original proposer agrees to such a change.  Let us assume there are now ten options still in contention.  A poll could further reduce this number and eventually there comes the final vote, another preferential ballot.  

21        In a five-option debate, it works like this:

+          he who casts only one preference gets his favourite just 1 point

(and the other options get nothing);

+          she who casts two preferences gets her favourite 2 points 

(and her 2^nd choice gets 1 point);

+          those who cast all five preferences get their favourite 5 points

                                        (their 2^nd choice gets 4 points, their 3^rd gets 3, etc.).

The difference is always 1 point.  So the system encourages (but does not force) those voting to cast all their preferences, to support their favourite but also to state their compromise option(s).  

If (nearly) every voter does that, we can identify the collective compromise, the option with the most points or the highest average preference.  And an average, of course, includes every voter, not just a majority of them.  

Politics is the art of compromise.  The above – the Modified Borda Count MBC – is its science.  Unlike the exclusive majority vote, the MBC is inclusive, literally.  It is egalitarian.  

CONCLUSION

22        Despite the words of George Washington, the only major organisation to reject majority voting, so far, as mentioned above, is the United Nations’ COPs.  Sadly, they don’t (yet) use preference voting.  They reject majority voting, but they then discuss… at length… and veto each other, and drink yet more coffee, and fail to reach compromise decisions.  Let us hope, for the sake of peace in the world’s conflict zones, Ukraine, Sudan and the Middle East, and most importantly, for the sake of our collective survival, that humankind reforms our ancient habit of binary thinking, and at long last adopts a methodology which is accurate, egalitarian and peaceful, i.e., non-majoritarian: the Modified Borda Count MBC.

20        Thank you, go raith mile maith agaibh, 谢谢。

---

[1]                Longchenpa, a Buddhist monk of the Nyingma tradition.  (P. Christiaan Klieger. Tibet – A History Between Dream and Nation State.)