About us

A blog: I'm going to China. Starting in Vienna with a TEDx talk, I then head to Belgrade, Sarajevo, Tbilisi, Baku and Kabul, before catching a bus across Tajikistan to Kashgar, 喀什, in Xīnjiāng, 新疆, where I hope to buy a bicycle.  https://debordaabroad.wordpress.com/2017/09/07/de-borda-abroad/



Mulit-option and Preferential Referendums

Please sign the petition on



Inclusive voting app 




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 decision-making and even more electoral systems.  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!


What's New?


2017-10 Problems of political patronage 

Ministers support Theresa May.  Well they would, wouldn't they.  If, however, she did not select, but MPs elected the cabinet... our latest press release.


2017-9 Whipped Votes and Fake News

x% of Party A, and x'% of Party B, vote 'for'; y% of A and y'% of B vote 'against. A > B, so A has the majority, applies the whip, and wins. But maybe y + y' > x + x'.  Hence this press release in the Irish News of 8th Sept.  See also 2017-1 and 2016-12.


2017-8 Mongolia - presidential elections

ODIHR, oh dear, OH DEAR!  ODIHR does not discuss electoral systems.  But to observe a Mongolian (or any other) election without talking about the voting procedure is like talking about Mongolian cuisine without mentioning meat.  Here's another view.


2017-7 UK elections, government

Total number of seats                         =          650

so a majority                            =          326

A         Tories              =          318

B         Lab                  =          262

C         SNP                 =            35

D         LD                   =            12

E          DUP                =            10

F          SF                    =             7

G         PC                   =              4

H         GP                   =              1

For those who believe in majority rule, a minimal majority coalition government could be either:

A + B, or A + C, or A + D, or A + E, or A + F + G or ...

B + C + D + E + F + G, or B + C + D + E + F + H

and in majoritarian democratic theory, any one of these seven combinations is only totally democratic.




2017-6 The Will of the People

The Will of the People: A Critique of (Simple or Weighted) Majority Voting.  In OJPS, 2017, Vol. 7, 311-325.

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/OJPS_2017042816243705.pdf    (See also 2017-1 and 2016-12.)