[EM] Using Borda to Set an Agenda

[Bart Ingles]

If the goal is nominal proportionality, then cumulative voting or even
simple plurality voting (aka SNTV) might be simpler to use than Borda. 
SNTV is actually a restricted form of cumulative voting, and does tend
to produce proportional results in multi-winner elections.

When used in meetings (usually to elect govering boards, etc.)
cumulative voting is often implemented with tokens.  Each member might
be given a fixed-size stack of chips which that member can allocate
among the various choices has he or she sees fit.  The League of Women
voters sometimes uses "dot voting", where each member is given a strip
of colored adhesive dots which can be affixed next one or more names on
a board containing the list of candidates.

SNTV is logically equivalent to cumulative voting, but requires the
voter to "spread" his single vote out using either random or cooperative
methods.  For example, if you want to vote for two candidates equally
using SNTV, you can pool your vote with another like-minded voter and
give one vote to each of the two candidates, or you can use a coin toss
to determine which of the two candidates to vote for.

Both cumulative voting and SNTV should give results which are more
proportional than Borda, although SNTV could actually go beyond
proportionality if the larger-faction voters cast their single vote
sincerely.  The tendency in this case would be for all factions to get
nearly the same representation, regardless of size.  I can imagine this
this might actually be desirable in some situations, but probably not in
public elections.

Bart


Jeffrey O'Neill wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Poor Mr. Borda was recently dissed on this list. :)  I'd like to suggest a use
> of the Borda count.
> 
> What is the proper voting system to set an agenda for a meeting.  Suppose 50
> proposals are submitted for consideration at a meeting which is to last eight
> hours.  How do you choose which proposal should be considered first, second,
> and so on until the meeting is over?
> 
> In just such a situation, I first proposed using STV.  STV was used to select
> the top five.  This was then repeated to choose the next five and so on.  The
> hand count was tedious and it isn't clear to me if PR is appropriate for this
> situation.  Why spend time on a proposal supported only by a small group if a
> majority is required for approval?
> 
> For the next meeting I sugested using a Borda count.  Intuitively, a Borda
> count seems more appropriate, but I find it difficult to express the proper
> principles.  Practically, it is a straightforward method for ranking all of the
> proposals.
> 
> Any thoughts?
> Jeff
> 
> PS. I'd also like to point out that there is some proportionality to using a
> Borda Count with multi-member districts.  Let me give an example for a 3-seat
> district.  Using SNTV, IRV, or STV, a candidate is guaranteed to be elected if
> he or she receives at least 25% of the vote.  This is sometimes called the
> "threshold of exclusion."  With Borda, the threshold of exclusion will be
> higher (it is straightforward to compute it exactly) but there will still be
> some proportionality.
> 
> ___________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
> Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info