PRESS RELEASE - immediate.
TIBET, LHASA, THE POTALA PALACE
The picture says it all; well, not quite all. My (mainly overland) journey to, and then in, China, with (and sometimes by) my Brompton, includes
2024
- (i) Nov. France. Strasbourg. The Council of Europe’s ‘World Forum on Democracy’, {see (vi) below} where for a third year running I critique majority voting.
- (ii) Nov. Azerbaijan. Baku. The UNFCCC’s COP29. While the COPs recognise the inadequacies of binary ballots, they do not (yet) consider the potential of multi-option or, better still, preferential voting.
- (iii) Dec. Georgia. Tbilisi’s International University awards a doctorate for my 1990’s work in the Caucasus on inclusive decision-making voting procedures.
2025
- (iv) Jan. India. Travelling overland from Mumbai to Bengaluru and New Delhi, I give
(a) three ‘university' lectures criticising both FPTP and binary ballots, and…
- (v) Apr. China. Tiānjīn.
(b) … two demos of electronic preferential voting (with www.debordavote.com ) in Nānkái University, plus…
- (vii) May. Mongolia. Ulaanbaatar.
(c) … two more in the National University NUM.
- (vii) Feb - Jun. China. Overland from Shangri-La. I undertake a major piece of political research, ecologically, going by train from one province to another, and then by bicycle to several villages to meet council members in Yúnnán, Guǎngxī, Guǎngdōng, Húnán, Jiāngsū, Shāndōng, Nèi Měnggǔ (Inner Mongolia), Xīnjiāng and Gānsù - all in readiness for a fourth critique of binary voting for the Chinese Academy of Social Science (zhōngguó shèhuì kēxuéyuàn 中国社会科学院 ) and its ‘International Forum on Democracy’ - {see (i) above}, and hence - (by the way, I’m 82) - I go…
from the hills of Shangri-La… to a village hall near Dàlǐ... to the ‘rural' expanse of Inner Mongolia, and so on.
- (viii) July. Tibet. བོད་ལྗོངས། (Bod ljongs} in Tibetan, 西藏 (Xīzàng) in Chinese.
Many of the world’s committees consist of an odd number of members... so that there’ll always be a majority. In Tibet’s Kashag or Governing Council, 1721-1950s, there were four members, but they didn’t always get a consensus..
_________
My research shows that Chinese electoral systems vary (as do ours) - their local councils use binary, plurality (FPTP) and/or approval voting, in direct and/or indirect elections, very occasionally with a quota form of PR; in decision-making, however, (we and) they use binary votes, in which the minority obeys the majority - shǎoshù fúcóng duōshù, 少数服从多数 - all part of a mindset which was, not the cause, but a factor, in Máo Zédōng’s very binary 'Anti-Rightist Campaign’, his ‘Great Leap Forward’... and its consequence, one of the world’s worst-ever famines.
_________
Binary votes on multi-option questions are illogical, often inaccurate, and at worst, downright dangerous. Indeed, in 2014, three western referendums - in effect, “Are you Russian or Ukrainian?” - were as nonsensical as would be a Chinese ballot on “Yīn or Yáng?”
In other divisive and deadly dichotomies - “Are you British or Irish?” “Serb or Croat?” “Sunni or Shi’a?” “Arab or Jew?” “Hutu or Tutsi?” - the very questions all but disenfranchise, firstly, partners in, and adult children of, mixed relationships; and secondly, importantly, these and others who, in a multi-option ballot, would want to vote for compromise and peace.
The non-duality of the above three (and countless other binary) questions, should have rendered them unfair and therefore inadmissible. So not only in elections, but especially in decision-making, and definitely on matters contentious and/or controversial, voting should invariably be preferential… not least in the US Congress!
Dr Peter Emerson
The de Borda Institute
34-6 Ballysillan Road
Belfast BT14 7QQ
{Currently in Tibet. Tel: 086-17813713523 (and China is 7 hours ahead of BST).}