The USA is divided; but if a country uses binary voting, not only in its decision-making but also in its elections, it will divide. Peter Emerson

This online event launches a timely and exciting new book by Peter Emerson that outlines the urgent need to move away from binary voting methods which he argues leads to division and conflict.

In Democratic Decision-making Consensus Voting for Civic Society and Parliaments Emerson demonstrates how an inclusive preferential voting system, the Modified Borda Count (MBC), can shift voting dynamics to promote more inclusive and deliberative approach to contentious political questions.

The evening will be an opportunity to explore Peter's ideas and arguments through open discussion. The evening will open with remarks by Dr. Peter Stone, Associate Professor, Trinity College, following by a presentation of the book by author Peter Emerson, the De Borda Institute Belfast. The evening's discussion will be chaired by Cllr. Vanessa Liston. A meeting link will be sent to all registered participants.

The book challenges us to consider:

In North Korea, the (only) Party chooses a nominee and it’s “Candidate X, yes-or-no?” Are these elections democratic? Should the voters not have a real choice?

In the West, the Party/ies (in power) choose/s a policy and, in referendums or parliamentary votes, it’s “Option X, yes-or-no?” Is this decision-making democratic? Should we and our parliamentarians not also have a real choice?

A majority opinion can be identified in either multi-option or preferential procedures, like either two-round voting or the alternative vote and the Borda/Condorcet rules. The author suggests the most accurate is a preferential points vote, the Modified Borda Count MBC: it identifies the option with the highest average preference… so it includes every voter or TD, (not just a majority of them). The MBC is inclusive, literally.

In a multi-option referendum, as in New Zealand in 1992, an independent commission draws up a list of, say, five options. In the Dáil, instead of binary votes on various amendments and then the motion itself (as amended or not), the Cathaoirleach could produce a (short) list of, yes, let’s say five options, and our elected representatives could then take just the one MBC vote.

The MBC is also non-majoritarian. So rather than splitting into two for our current adversarial politics, democracies everywhere, and not just in Switzerland, could enjoy all-party power-sharing.

Further information on the book is available at: https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030528072