About us


A blog: " De Borda abroad."  A journey to China. Starting in Vienna with a 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. But in every city, I have my little fold-up Brompton - the best way of exploring any new venue! It's all on:




Mulit-option and Preferential Referendums

Please sign the petition



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!

On 23.10.2014, in  Nánkāi University, from a list of 10 actors (shown below), 19 students chose 4 actors/actresses to, as it were, act in a film.  The candidates were:


Chéng Lóng                            成 龙

Dèng Chāo                              邓超                           

Fàn Bīng Bīng                         范 冰 冰 

Gõng Lì                                   巩 俐              

Liú Dé Huá                             刘 德华

Li Yū Chún                             李 宇 春                                 

Xú Jìng Léi                              徐 静 蕾                 

Xú Zhēng                                徐 铮                                      

Zhāng Guó Lì                          张 国 立                     

Zhāng Màn Yù                        张 蔓 玉 

and they used a matrix vote.  The winners were Fàn Bīng Bīng to play the role of the corrupt official (25), Dèng Chāo to be the hero (17), Chéng Lóng to be the villain (16) and Xú Jìng Léi the heroine (15).  But the interesting fact was that nobody voted for all four actors; and nobody voted for none of the four; so everybody won something and nobody won everything.  Perfect.  A classic example of win-win voting.  

On 9.12.2014, a similar exercise was undertaken in zhōu University.  Again, everyone won something and no-one won everything.  This is the full analysis.