About us

I'm on my way to China again.  And here's the blog: https://deborda.substack.com/p/debordaabroad2

-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-

The de Borda Institute

aims to promote the use of inclusive, multi-optional and preferential voting procedures, both in parliaments/congresses and in referendums, 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, a company board, a co-operative, and so on.  But we also cover elections.

               * * * * *

The Institute is named after Jean-Charles de Borda, and hence the well-known voting procedure, the Borda Count BC; but Jean-Charles actually invented what is now called the Modified Borda Count, MBC - the difference is subtle:

In a vote on n options, the voter may cast m preferences; and, of course, m < n.

In a BC, points are awarded to (1st, 2nd ... last) preferences cast according to the rule (n, n-1 ... 1) {or (n-1, n-2 ... 0)} whereas,

in an MBC, points are awarded to (1st, 2nd ... lastpreferences cast according to the rule (m, m-1 ... 1).

The difference can be huge, especially when the topic is controversial: the BC benefits those who cast only a 1st preference; the MBC encourages the consensual, those who submit not only a 1st preference but also their 2nd (and subsequent) compromise option(s) And if (nearly) every voter states their compromise option(s), an MBC can identify the collective compromise.

 _/-_/-_/-_/-_/-_/-_/-_/-

DECISION-MAKER
Inclusive voting app 

https://debordavote.com

THE APP TO BEAT ALL APPS, APPSOLUTELY!

(The latest in a long-line of electronic voting for decision-making; our first was in 1991.)

 _/-_/-_/-_/-_/-_/-_/-_/-

FINANCES

The Institute was estabished in 1997 with a cash grant of £3,000 from the Joseph Rowntree Charitabe Trust, and has received the occasional sum from Northern Ireland's Community Relations Council and others.  Today it relies on voluntary donations and the voluntary work of its board, while most running expenses are paid by the director. 

 _/-_/-_/-_/-_/-_/-_/-_/-

A BLOG 

"De Borda abroad." From Belfast to Beijing and beyond... and back. Starting in Vienna with the Sept 2017 TEDx talk, I give lectures in Belgrade, Sarajevo, Istanbul, Tbilisi, Yerevan, Tehran, Beijing, Tianjin, Xuzhou, Hong Kong and Taiwan... but not in Pyongyang. Then back via Mongolia (where I had been an election observer in June 2017) and Moscow (where I'd worked in the '80s).

I have my little fold-up Brompton with me - surely the best way of exploring any new city! So I prefer to go by train, boat or bus, and then cycle wherever in each new venue; and all with just one plastic water bottle... or that was the intention!

The story is here.

In Sept 2019, I set off again, to promote the book of the journey.  After the ninth book launch in Taipei University, I went to stay with friends in a little village in Gansu for the Chinese New Year.  The rat.  Then came the virus, lockdown... and I was stuck.

_/-_/-_/-_/-_/-_/-_/-_/-

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.

 

_/-_/-_/-_/-_/-_/-_/- 

 

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. 

Search
Login
Powered by Squarespace
Won by One
WELCOME

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 voting procedures for use in decision-making and even more electoral systems.  This is because, in decision-making, there is usually only one outcome - a singe decision or a shopping ist, a prioritisation; but with some electoral systems, and definitely in any proportional ones, there can be several winners.  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!

« 2022-4 NI Elections, abuses. Next on May 5th. | Main | 2022-2 UKRAINE, (Scotland and Ireland) »
Friday
Feb252022

2022-3 NO TO WAR - Нет войне

JAW-JAW

The talks were getting nowhere, so Winston Churchill grabbed a piece of paper and wrote, “Poland, 90% yours, 10 % ours; Czechoslovakia and others, 50:50; Greece, 90% ours, 10% yours.”  Jozef Stalin looked for a moment and then, tick.  That was in 1944.  The fate of millions, fixed, with a tick – the ‘percentages agreement’ – and both had their spheres of influence.

Stalin then took control of Eastern Europe, the western border of which Churchill was the first to call the Iron Curtain in 1946.  Thus the two allies against Hitler, one a capitalist, one a communist, both imperialists (with a common attraction to alcohol), became the adversaries of the Cold War.  Next, Stalin cut off the tail of Czechoslovakia so that Russia had a common border with Hungary, all in anticipation of 1956, when Soviet tanks were to roll into Budapest (while British guns were to fight in Suez). 

Inter alia, World War II brought about the beginning of the often painful end of the British and French Empires.  One empire remained, however, the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union; and another emerged, based on an expanded Monroe doctrine – that of the USA.  Unlike other empires, the Russian/Soviet domains were always contiguous.  Initially, 1,000 years or so ago, Moscow, Moscovy, was a relatively small city state, a colony if you like of Ukraine, part of what was Kievan Rus’.  Then, while British and French sailors went westward overseas, to conquer, Russian soldiers did the same overland, eastwards.  Ivan the Terrible took Kazan in 1552, and they continued, over the centuries, until they reached the Bering Straits (and even Alaska… which they sold for a pup to the US).  In the wake of Lenin’s 1917 coup d’état (revolution), only Finland got her independence, and Moscow retained its other spheres of influence, in the Caucasus for example.  It gave lip service to the communists in Spain, who were miles away; and to their ‘comrades’ in Greece.  But Poland?  The old enemy?  On a common border?  No; that had to be 90% Russian.  (And politically, 90% = 100%.)  Tick.   

So the battle lines were drawn.  A few countries managed to stay neutral – Finland, Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland – but pretty well everyone else took sides.  Hence, in 1949, the formation of NATO, and in retaliation, six years later, the Warsaw Pact, both sides bristling with nuclear missiles.

In 1991, however, the Soviet Union collapsed, as did the Warsaw Pact.  And NATO?  The job done?  Nuclear disarmament?  Peace dividend?  Time to retire, perhaps, to take up golf?  Apparently not.  NATO was then involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, neither exactly on the Atlantic seaboard, doing what should have been done, if at all, by the UN.

From Putin’s point of view, therefore – and many peoples dream of days long gone – 1985  and Mikhail Gorbachev led to a disaster.  Perestroika involved many changes, not least democratisation and the right of self-determination.  So just as Ireland could opt out of the UK, and NI opt out of Ireland, so too Georgia could opt out of the USSR, and Abkhazia out of Georgia.  The first ethnic clashes in the Soviet Union were in 1998, in Nagorno-Karabakh, and the headline in Moscow’s main newspaper Pravda the next morning was “This is our Northern Ireland,” ‘Вот Наш Оьлстер’.  And wars followed, in Azerbaijan, Chechnya, Georgia, Moldova (and Yugoslavia).  In 2008, Georgia wanted South Ossetia back again, so Saakashvili started a war.  Putin retaliated.

Six years later, in Crimea, where Stalin and Churchill had met 60 years earlier, the local Russian-speaking Ukrainians held a referendum, which is what we do.  Other Russian-speakers did the same, in Donetsk and Luhansk, which is what Scotland was doing – and the word ‘Shotlandiya’ (Scotland) was used by Russian separatists, ‘justifying’ the unjustifiable.  Yet others in Donetsk had another referendum – the Russian call it ‘matryoshka nationalism’ (after those famous Russian dolls) – trying in vain to opt out of opting out so as to opt back in again, which is what Northern Ireland did a hundred years ago.

So, with Russian tanks yet again rolling across borders, what do we do now?  Well maybe we should recognise (non-Slav) Chechnya as an independent state?  Or the land of the (non-Slav) Buryat peoples (near Lake Baikal)?  Or that of the Chukchis, on the shores of the Pacific?  But is it not ridiculous that, in the name of majority rule, all power is given to just one individual, Putin (or Johnson)?  Should we not reform our democratic structure away from majoritarianism to a more consensual form?  After all, the Russian word for ‘majoritarianism’ is ‘bolshevism’ (большевизм).

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend