Climate breakdown and Covid are telling us we must live and work together. So, for example, the UN COP climate meeting rejects majority votes and aims for consensus.
But this gives each country the “right” to veto: China and India at Cop26, the Democratic Republic of the Congo at Cop15. They haven’t figured out how best to reach consensus.
In the past, different peoples tried to identify what they had in common: in Indian prisoner-of-war ceremonies, Balasas and gacaka [1] of Africa, the round sitting yuán zuò, round discussion yuán yì [2] China and the Middle Ages Dings norwegian [3]. often takes a considerable amount of time…
amendment
Thus, about 2,500 years ago, the Greeks and later the Chinese each invented binary voting.History shows that it worked well in both settings of relatively wealthy people—citizens of the Greek Forum and ministers at the court of the former Han Dynasty in China: either “chosen x, Yes or no? ” or Pairing, “Options x or option yes? It works if the problem is binary.
However, in a murder trial in Rome in 105, the jury three option – A sort of released, Second exile, C Corporal Punishment – Pliny the Younger realizes that when there is no majority in favor of either option, then obviously, there are most be opposed to each option. “Innocent, yes or no?” – Second and C attack A sort of. “Execute, yes or no?” – A sort of and Second be opposed to C. etc.
So the Greeks invented a procedure based on binary voting: first, the most popular amendment is chosen; next, the amendment is rejected or accepted for substantiveness;
Imagine nine people thinking, is meeting on a forum riceNowadays Tontuesday or WWednesday?if four people want ricethree likes Ton two options , Then there are majorities five, six and seven against m, tons and Wand nine against none, options no. If the preferences of these nine people are shown in the picture..
…if the motion is “Let’s meet on Monday” and an amendment to either Ton or W7 likes Ton; Next, Ton with the motion rice, and rice the beat Ton 6:3; Finally, this substantive, ricerelatively nowhich one no 5:4 wins.Three binary votes, the answer is no.
unwelcome
To sum it up: they verbally agree that nobody wants anything; then they agree democratically that they want nothing!Furthermore, if the motion is for Ton although rice and W are these two amendments, the result will be Ton.
The conclusion is clear: In many multiple-choice debates, binary voting does not and cannot Determine the “will of the people” or the will of Parliament.
Like Brexit. This is a multi-option debate: Britain in the EU, EEA, customs union or WTO. David Cameron had only one vote on one option and said “no” by a narrow majority. But maybe more people are against other options.
Theresa May has four options – her “indicative vote” – and indeed a majority against everything.
With Boris Johnson, “‘His deal’, yes or no?” The ballot could lose. So he uses a pairing that always wins: in effect he’s asking: “‘His deal’ or ‘no deal’?” He wins. But “any deal” will win against the least popular “no deal”.
emperor
When kids choose vegetables for lunch—Swedish, radishes, broccoli…—usually the majority is against; then puddings—chocolate cake, ice cream, blancmange…—majority is in favor. In multiple choice debates, binary voting is sometimes almost meaningless.
No wonder many academics have thought of multiple choice voting. The Chinese first used plural voting in 1197 during the Jurchen Jin Dynasty.
Next, (unrelated), in 1299, Ramón Llull suggested preferential voting; in 1433, Nicholas of Cusa proposed the points system; calculate.
Adopted in France, in Academy of Sciences, this discount point system works very well. However, these are turbulent times, and a new guy doesn’t like this “consensus bullshit”, so it’s back to majority voting. He chose the question; the people voted for it or against it…and in 1803 he became Emperor – Napoleon.
Politicians love majority voting because it gives them control over everything. Vladimir Putin asks: “Luhansk: Independence, yes or no?”
multiple choice
That was in 2014, and of course witnessed the Scottish referendum, the Scottish word, Шотландия,’Scotland’Used by Russian separatists in Luhansk to … “justify” things that don’t make sense.
“Everything is interconnected,” to quote Ukrainian philosopher Vladimir Varnadsky – Ukraine, Scotland, Ireland, Catalonia, Republika Srpska…
In 2022, Putin changed his mind: “Luhansk: Incorporate into Russia, yes or no?” So apparently people changed their minds too. In short, majority voting is often a means by the powerful to manipulate the weak.
In politics (and business), however, most debates are or should be multiple choice; correspondingly, the corresponding votes should be multiple choice.
conflict
So, like the Jurchen councils of yesteryear, democratic decision-making should allow anyone to make a suggestion; every option on the table (and today’s computer screen); and, arrive New Zealand’s 1992 referendum on five electoral systems, with final selection (ideally, 4-6) options done independently.
This is the key!Separation of powers should mean that the number and type of choices must be resolved independently of the executive branch; the people in a referendum or MPs in a parliament then cast their preferences; at best, the result is the highest option Average Preferences; averages, of course, involving each (voting) member of parliament/society.
