A More Rational Selection Method: Condorcet

Suggested by the 18th century French philosopher Marquis de Condorcet The “Condorcet paradox/Majority method” Once you understand the logic, you will think a lot about who the real winner should be.

As the details of this idea are very extensive, in plain language and with example We tried to explain.

Let’s assume that we have 4 candidates as in these elections. Let the number of our voters be 65 (representing our total number of voters, 64 million 113 thousand 941).

To each of these 4 candidates Ali, Ahmet, Ayşe, Mehmet Let’s say and, using our current voting system, let’s say the election ended up like this:

1. Ali: 18 votes

2. Ahmed: 17 votes

3. Ayşe: 16 votes

4. Mehmet: 14 votes

As you can see, it’s a solid result. In the classical system, Ali wins the election. So, what kind of system does the Condorcet method suggest? What would be the result in this system?

Philosopher Condorcet argued that instead of voters voting for a single person, Ranking their preferences from best to worst recommends voting.

In other words, if a voter who votes for Ahmet in the classical system does not want Ali to be elected, but is also warm to the election of Ayşe and Mehmet, it is because he is not given the right to reflect his views about them to the ballot box. He cannot weaken Ali’s power.

Marquis de Condorcet

Let’s take a look at this sample selection made with the Condorcet method. Let’s say the preferences are ordered as follows:

• Candidate preference order of 18 voters who voted for Ali: Ali > Ayse > Mehmet > Ahmet

• Candidate preference order of 17 voters who voted for Ahmet: Ahmet > Ayse > Mehmet > Ali

• Candidate preference order of 16 voters who voted for Ayşe: Ayse > Mehmet > Ahmet > Ali

• Candidate preference order of 14 voters who voted for Mehmet: Mehmet > Ayse > Ahmed > Ali

As can be seen, Ali, who is the 1st in the classical voting, He was the last choice of voters who did not vote for him. So, can this prevent him from winning in the method we mentioned?

Condorcet did not set such a point value, but let’s make the situation a little more concrete for clarity:

1st preference voting power 1 full point
Voting power of 2nd preferences 0.75 points
Voting power of 3rd preferences 0.50 points
Let the voting power of the 4th preferences be 0.25 points

Let’s move on to the calculation:

In addition to Ali’s 18 full votes, we will add 47 votes, each of which is 0.25 points, due to the fact that he is the 4th option of the other voters. This makes 47×0.25=11.75 points. Total vote value when we add it to Ali’s 18 full games 29.75 it does.

Ayşe, on the other hand, took the 3rd place in the classical system by receiving 16 full votes, but the number of votes with a power of 0.75 is high, as she was predominantly in the second choice of other voters in the election where the Condorcet method was applied. He has 46 0.75 votes, which makes 34.5 points. When we add 16 full votes to this, a total of 50.5 it does.

midjourney

Thus, 3rd in the classical system, Ayşe, rose to 50.5 votes and became the winner of the election, outperforming Ali, who could only get 29.75 votes in the new system.

In fact, Ahmet with 36.5 points of votes and Mehmet with 42.75 votes surpassed Ali. Ali, the first of the first system, was the last in this system.

In this way, it is ensured that a person with whom the general public is less than satisfied does not take over the administration. This is in society It relieves radicalization and unrest.

In this system the will of the general public has been chosen. In the classical system, the party hated by the general public won the election.

Editor note: Of course, the power of points can be changed according to the ranking. For example, the last choices may be -0.25 in strength or 4 choices are not required, only those who wish can do so. This method can be diversified, but as a result, it is a fact that the general public will be more satisfied.

Would you like this system to come?