2025-22 MOSCOW and KIEV

In 2004, I suggested Ukraine should join the EU but not NATO. In 2009, I argued against binary voting procedures in the OSCE/ODIHR in Warsaw. And so my lecture in Moscow on 8.10.2025 in the HSE University critiqued (a) the binary referendums of 2014 and 2022, and (b) the binary nature of the Ukrainian two-round electoral system. In effect, the question asked in (a) was, "Are you Ukrainian or Russian?" But it is not a duality. The press release explains: MAJORITY VOTING MAY BE ACCURATE IF, BUT ONLY IF, THE TWO OPTIONS ARE A DUALITY.

Click to read more ...

2025-21 FRANCE

(Just like Britain when arguing about Brexit), France is now arguing about governance... and in both settings, it seems, there (was) is a majority against every proposal.  So why (did) do (the Brits and) especially the French use the 2,500-year-old binary voting, the most inaccurate voting measure of collective opinion ever invented? In other words, why do they ignore the work of their compatriots, M Jean-Charles de Borda et Le Marquis de Condorcet who in l'Académie des Sciences, just over 250 years ago, in 1770 and 1785, devised two brilliant preferential procedures: the Modified Borda Count MBC (as it is now called) or Borda preferendum, and the Condorcet rule, both of which are very accurate?  

2025-20 MOSCOW

On 8th Oct, I'll be giving a lecture in HSE University on the theme:

MAJORITY VOTING MAY BE OK IF, BUT ONLY IF, THE TWO OPTIONS ARE A DUALITY.   

More details on https://www.hse.ru/DeCAn/announcements/1089949980.html

2025-19 Dutch elections on Oct 29th

In 2023, the PVV got 23.5% of the vote.  Therefore, in theory, it should have had about 23.5% of the government.  Alas, (like nearly every other democracy), the Dutch parliament divides itself into two - a government versus an opposition (as if there were only two parties).  And Wilders' PVV party got 9 of the ministers, which is way over 23.5%.

An all-party power-sharing coalition would be more democratic.  Then, in decision-making, in each ballot, instead of getting a majority from a short list of only two options, parlaiment could identify the option with the highest average prefence on a short list of about six options.  It's called pluralism.

So Dutch democracy would work like this.  The electorate would elect a parliament, ideally by a preferential form of PR. About a week later, the parliament could elect an all-party cabinet, again by PR, using a Borda matrix vote.  And this administration could base its future decisions using the above preferential (and non-majoritarian) ballots.

2025-18 The Irish Times

Scientific research (done ecologically) into China's villages' systems of self-governance.  

(Sept 12th).  https://www.irishtimes.com/world/asia-pacific/2025/09/12/meet-the-82-year-old-belfast-man-cycling-across-china-to-understand-how-villages-vote/

2025-17 Democracy! Coming soon (I hope)

Democracy is for everybody; it should be inclusive.  In contrast, majority voting  -  maybe only 50%+1  -  is exclusive. 

 

Reduce every multi-option debate, not to a series of binary ballots, short-lists of just two options, but to a few (not so) short-lists of, say, six options...  as would befit a multi-party parliament.  On each topic, MPs could debate and cast their preferences; on each, at best, the option with the highest average preference would be the winner.  And an average, of course, involves every voting MP  -  ah, the basis of all-party power-sharing, a pre-condition for tackling Climate Change.

Jean-Charles de Borda devised this methodology in 1770.  Wanting something controllable, however, Napoléon went back to majority voting; he chose the question  -  “Moi, oui ou non?”  -  and in a referendum in 1803, he was duly elected l’empereur; a ‘democratic dictator,’ he might have said.

Mussolini, Hitler, Pinochet et al followed.  But there is little or perhaps nothing democratic in a majority vote.  After all, Ms Hobson, 2 options means not much choice.  With 3 options, there are six ways of casting all 3 preferences  -  ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB and CBA; 4 options allow for 24 nuances/opinions; 5 and then 6 can cater for the diversity of humankind.

With Trump, majority voting in Congress is part of the problem.  In the Knesset, Netanyahu’s majority coalition is (not the but) a cause of war.  In the USSR, 'majoritarianism' in translation was 'bolshevism большевизм.'  And in Northern Ireland, majority rule sparked off The Troubles.  No wonder majority voting has been rejected by the COPs.  In all, it is primitive, divisive, and not (very) democratic.

2025-16 Taiwan's two-party system

CROSSING THE OTHER DIVIDE A CALL FOR THE MEDIA AND ACADEMIA TO AT LEAST QUESTION MAJORITY VOTING

Click to read more ...

2025-15 Taiwan

The USA is split. Taiwan's politics - green versus blue - umm; maybe a less binary polity would be wiser: and this was the thesis of my talk in Taipei's National University on Aug 14th. ...western ideas have come to dominate many aspects of modern life. But was it right,

Click to read more ...

2025-14 The CRC talks of consensus

The Community Relations Council CRC has just published a polite version of: POLITICAL BASTARDS “Are you Russian or Ukrainian?” they asked. And now they’re killing each other. But the two are not

Click to read more ...

2025-13 BURMA, MYANMAR elections

Post-conflict elections should be preferential, so to allow the environmentalist to vote 'with', say, (rather than 'against' the socialist, lest the 'anti-junta' vote be split and fragmented.  So PR-STV please, or better still, QBS, the Quota Borda System.