Scribd
Upload
13 views9 pages

Understanding Voting Methods Explained

This document provides a lesson on voting methods, including plurality, plurality with elimination, Borda count, and pairwise comparison. It outlines objectives for understanding and applying these methods in real-world scenarios, along with examples and exercises for practice. The lesson emphasizes the importance of fair voting systems in decision-making processes.

Uploaded by

alkaizerali29
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
13 views9 pages

Understanding Voting Methods Explained

This document provides a lesson on voting methods, including plurality, plurality with elimination, Borda count, and pairwise comparison. It outlines objectives for understanding and applying these methods in real-world scenarios, along with examples and exercises for practice. The lesson emphasizes the importance of fair voting systems in decision-making processes.

Uploaded by

alkaizerali29
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

VOTING

Lesson (number)

Introduction

Voting is an important method in order to make a collective decision may it be to choose


leaders such as leaders in a democratic country, school organization officers or the most favorite
brand of shoes. In order to make decisions, there are many ways may it be simple or complex.

______________________________________________________________________________

Objectives

At the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

1. Identify and describe different voting methods such as the plurality method, plurality with
elimination (with or without ranking), Borda count, and pairwise comparison.

2. Apply the plurality method, plurality with elimination, Borda count, and pairwise comparison
to solve real-world voting and ranking problems.

3. Compare the outcomes of different voting methods when applied to the same set of data.

4. Evaluate which voting method is most appropriate or fair in a given context.

______________________________________________________________________________
Try this!

Who’s the Most Popular?

Your class is planning a fun day, and you need to vote on what activity to do. The options are:

 � Watching a movie
 � Playing a sports tournament
 � Holding a mini art exhibit
 � Hosting a talent show

Instructions:

1. Individually, rank the four options from 1 (most preferred) to 4 (least preferred).

2. Once everyone has completed their rankings, gather the votes as a class and create a
summary table of everyone’s preferences.

3. Without using any formal voting method yet, discuss:

o Which option looks like it would win if we just go by first-choice votes?


o Do you think that’s the “fairest” way to decide? Why or why not?
o What would happen if we considered everyone's full ranking instead?

Reflect:

 How do we decide what is “fair” in a group decision?

 Why might different voting methods lead to different outcomes?

______________________________________________________________________________

Think ahead!
In our earlier activity, you ranked several options for a class event. You may have noticed
that simply counting first-choice votes doesn’t always reflect the preferences of the majority
fairly. This situation is more common than you might think—not just in classrooms, but in
organizations, businesses, and even national elections.

This brings us to an important question:

Can the way we vote affect what we decide?

In Mathematics in the Modern World, we explore how mathematical concepts apply to


real-life issues—and voting is one of the most relevant examples. Voting isn't just about
expressing preferences; it's also about how those preferences are tallied and whether the method
used is fair, accurate, or prone to manipulation.

As we explore different voting systems in this lesson, consider:


 How does each method work?
 What does it prioritize—majority rule, consensus, or ranked preferences?
 In what real-world situations might one method be better than another?

Understanding voting methods helps us become not only better problem solvers, but also
more informed citizens and decision-makers.
___________________________________________________________________________

Read and Ponder

A. Plurality Method

In this method each voter votes for one candidate, and the candidate with the most votes
wins. The winning candidate does not have to have a majority (more than 50%) of the votes
(Aufmann [Link], 2013).

Example 1. Internet Usage. A journalist reviewing various internet service providers in the
Philippines surveyed 150 customers and asked each one to rank four service providers in order of
preference. The results are shown in the table below.

Rankings
Converge ICT Solutions 3 4 2 3 4
One SKY 1 1 4 4 3
PLDT 2 2 1 2 1
Globe Broadband 4 3 3 1 2
Number of votes: 15 30 40 25 40

Based on this table, which service provider is the favorite of these customers using plurality
voting system?

Solution:
We will construct a table showing the first-place votes for each service provider.

Service Provider First-Place Votes


Converge ICT Solutions 0
One SKY 15 + 30 = 45
PLDT 40 + 40 = ��
Globe Broadband 25

Since PLDT receives the most first-place votes, using plurality voting system PLDT is
the favorite internet service provider.

B. Plurality with Elimination

This method is a variation of plurality method. If a candidate receives a majority of votes,


that candidate is the winner. Otherwise, eliminate first the fewest first-place votes. If two or more
of these alternatives have the same number of first-place votes, all are eliminated unless that
would eliminate all alternatives. In that case, a different method of voting must be used. Next,
adjusts the rankings of the remaining candidates. Repeat this process until a candidate receives
majority of the votes.

Example 2. Volleyball Uniform A volleyball team must choose the colours for its uniforms.
The coach offered four different choices, and the players ranked them in order of preference, as
shown in the table below.

Uniform Colors Rankings


Maroon and white 1 3 3 2
Orange and gray 4 1 4 1
Green and white 3 4 2 4
Yellow and green 2 2 1 3
Number of votes: 4 2 5 4

Determine the colors of the uniform to be used using plurality with elimination.

Solution:

Determine first-place votes and eliminate the fewest first-place votes.

Uniform Colors Rankings


Maroon and white 1 3 3 2
Orange and gray 4 1 4 1
Green and white 3 4 2 4
Yellow and green 2 2 1 3
Number of votes: 4 2 5 4

Uniform Colors First-Place Votes


Maroon and white 4
Orange and Gray 2+4 = 6
Green and white 0
Yellow and green 5

Eliminate green and white, then adjust the ranks of the remaining candidates.

Uniform Colors Rankings


Maroon and white 1 3 2 2
Orange and gray 3 1 3 1
Yellow and green 2 2 1 3
Number of votes: 4 2 5 4

Again, determine the first-place votes

Uniform Colors First-Place Votes


Maroon and white 4
Orange and Gray 2 + 4 =6
Yellow and green 5

Eliminate maroon and white and the new adjusted preference uniform colors is shown below

Uniform Colors Rankings


Orange and gray 2 1 2 1
Yellow and green 1 2 1 2
Number of votes: 4 2 5 4

Uniform Colors First-Place Votes


Orange and Gray 2+4 = 6
Yellow and green 4+5 = 9

The preceding table shows that, orange and gray have 6 first-place votes while yellow
and green has 9 first-place (majority of the votes). Therefore, yellow and green is the most
preferred colours for the volleyball uniform.
C. The Borda Count Method of Voting

This method was proposed by Jean C. Borda in 1770. Borda proposed that voters rank
their choices by giving each choice a certain number of points.

If there are n candidates or issues in an election, each voter ranks the candidates or issues
by giving n points to the voter’s first choice, n-1 points to the voter’s second choice, and so on,
with the voter’s least favorite choice receiving 1 point. The candidate or issue that receives the
most total points is the winner (Aufmann [Link], 2013).

Example 3. From Example 1, use the Borda count method of voting to determine which among
the four-internet service provider is the favorite of these customers.

Rankings
Converge ICT Solutions 3 4 2 3 4
One SKY 1 1 4 4 3
PLDT 2 2 1 2 1
Globe Broadband 4 3 3 1 2
Number of votes: 15 30 40 25 40

Points
Converge ICT Solutions 2 1 3 2 1
One SKY 4 4 1 1 2
PLDT 3 3 4 3 4
Globe Broadband 1 2 2 4 3
Number of votes: 15 30 40 25 40

Solution:

Using the Borda count method, each first-place vote receives 4 points, each second-place
vote receives 3 points, each third-place vote receives 2 points, and each last-place vote receives 1
point.

Converge ICT Solutions:


15(2) + 30(1) + 40(3) + 25(2) + 40(1) = 270
One SKY:
15(4) + 30(4) + 40(1) + 25(1) + 40(2) = 325
PLDT:
15(3) + 30(3) + 40(4) + 25(3) + 40(4) = 530
Globe Broadband:
15(1) + 30(2) + 40(2) + 25(4) + 40(3) = 375

Thus, using the Borda count method of voting, Converge ICT Solutions is the favorite
internet service provider of the customers.
D. Pairwise Comparison Voting Method

The pairwise comparison method of voting is sometimes referred to as the “head-to-


head” method. In this method, each candidate is compared one-on-one with each of the other
candidates. A candidate receives 1 point for a win, 0.5 points for a tie, and 0 points for a loss.
The candidate with the greatest number of points wins the election (Aufmann [Link], 2013).

Example 4: From Example 1, use the pairwise comparison voting method to determine which
among the four-internet service provider is the favorite of these customers.

Rankings
Converge ICT Solutions 3 4 2 3 4
One SKY 1 1 4 4 3
PLDT 2 2 1 2 1
Globe Broadband 4 3 3 1 2
Number of votes: 15 30 40 25 40

Solution:
We will create a table to keep track of each of the head-to-head comparisons. Note that a
matchup between, say, Converge ICT Solutions and One SKY is the same as the matchup
between One SKY and Converge ICT Solutions. Therefore, we will shade the duplicate cells and
the cells between the same candidates. This is shown in the table below:

Converge ICT Globe


versus One SKY PLDT
Solutions Broadband
Converge ICT
Solutions
One SKY
PLDT
Globe
Broadband

To complete the table, we will place the name of the winner in the cell of each head-to-
head match. For instance, for the Converge ICT Solutions - One SKY matchup:

Converge ICT Solutions vs. One SKY

Converge ICT Solutions was favoured over One SKY: 40 + 25 =65


One SKY was favoured over Converge ICT Solutions: 15 + 30 + 40 = 85

The winner of this matchup is One SKY, so that name is placed in the Converge ICT
Solutions versus One SKY cell. Do this for each of the matchups.

Converge ICT Solutions vs. PLDT


Converge ICT Solutions was favoured over PLDT: 0
PLDT was favoured over Converge ICT Solutions: 15 + 30 + 40 + 25 + 40 = 150

Converge ICT Solutions vs. Globe Broadband


Converge ICT Solutions was favoured over Globe Broadband: 15 + 40 = 55
Globe Broadband was favoured over Converge ICT Solutions: 30 + 25 + 40 = 95

One SKY vs. PLDT


One SKY was favoured over PLDT: 15 + 30 = 45
PLDT was favoured over One SKY: 40 + 25 + 40 = 105

One SKY vs. Globe Broadband


One SKY was favoured over Globe Broadband: 15 +30 = 45
Globe Broadband was favoured over One SKY: 40 + 25 + 40 = 105

PLDT vs. Globe Broadband


PLDT was favoured over Globe Broadband: 15 + 30 + 40 + 40 = 125
Globe Broadband was favoured over PLDT: 25

Converge ICT Globe


versus One SKY PLDT
Solutions Broadband
Converge ICT
One SKY PLDT Globe Broadband
Solutions
One SKY PLDT Globe Broadband
PLDT PLDT
Globe
Broadband

From the table above, One SKY has one win, PLDT has three wins, and Globe
Broadband has two wins. Using pairwise comparison, PLDT is the favorite internet service
provider of the customers.

______________________________________________________________________________

See if you can do this!

1. Juice Drink. Fifty people were asked to select their preferences among the three different
kinds of juice drink: Apple juice, Carrot juice, and Cucumber juice. The preference schedule is
shown in the table below.
Rankings
Apple juice 1 3 3
Carrot juice 2 2 1
Cucumber juice 3 1 2
Number of ballots 20 10 15

a. Using the plurality voting system, which juice is preferred by this group?

b. Using the Borda method of voting, which juice is preferred by this group? Which is second?
Which is third?

2. Election. In the recent election for local officials in Zamboanga City, Philippines, five
candidates are running for mayor. Interested persons were asked to rank the candidates in order
of preference. The results are given in the table below.

Rankings
M. Climaco 5 1 2 1 2
C. Lobregat 2 4 5 5 3
S. Ikbala 3 2 1 3 5
C. Miguel Sr. 4 3 4 4 1
D. Guevara 1 5 3 2 4
Number of votes: 16 9 14 10 11

a. How many interested persons were asked?

b. Use the pairwise comparison method to determine the mayor of Zamboanga City.

c. Use the plurality with elimination method to determine the mayor to be chosen.

REFERENCES

1. Aufmann, R. N., Lockwood, J.S., Nation, R. D., & Clegg, D. K. (2013). Mathematical
Excursions (Third Edition). Belmont CA: Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning.
2. Baltazar, E., Ragasa, C., & Evangelista, J. (2018). Mathematics in the Modern World. C & E
Publishing Inc.,
3. [Link]

Common questions

Powered by AI

The Plurality Method can lead to outcomes where the chosen candidate does not reflect the overall majority's preference, as it only considers the highest number of first-place votes without requiring a majority over 50% . This can undermine fairness because a candidate can win despite not having broad support, as seen in the example from Source 2 where the favourite service provider was determined without a majority.

Pairwise Comparison allows for a head-to-head evaluation of each candidate, which can result in a more nuanced outcome than methods like Plurality, as it assesses each candidate relative to every other. This reduces the risk of a candidate with polarized support winning via a simple plurality . However, it can be resource-intensive and complex to implement compared to simpler methods. Its nuanced approach might also lead to ties that require additional rules to resolve .

Voting methods vary significantly in what they prioritize. The Plurality Method emphasizes majority rule in a simplistic fashion by focusing on first-place votes, which can overlook consensus. Plurality with elimination considers majority but in a stepwise manner if no candidate starts with the majority, potentially fostering broader consensus . The Borda Count captures ranked preferences by assigning points across rankings, thus promoting broader consensus beyond mere first-choice preferences . Pairwise Comparison directly compares candidates to establish a consensus through head-to-head victories .

For an organization with diverse stakeholders, the Borda Count method or Pairwise Comparison is recommended because they comprehensively consider rankings, thus capturing broader preferences and respect for minority opinions. Borda Count is especially useful to aggregate ranking preferences effectively, promoting fairness. Pairwise Comparison is suited for competitive evaluation, ensuring that the winner is broadly acceptable across different voter subgroups .

The Borda Count method is more effective in situations where it is important to consider all voter preferences rather than just the first choice. This method calculates the total points based on rankings, allowing a more comprehensive view of overall preferences. It is particularly useful in elections where candidates have varying degrees of support across the voter base, potentially leading to outcomes that better reflect the collective ranking, rather than just a plurality .

Plurality with elimination can change the outcome by ensuring that only candidates who can ultimately achieve a majority are considered, as it eliminates low-ranking candidates and redistributes their votes. This method helps prevent a candidate from winning simply because they have the largest minority share, thus leading to outcomes contingent upon broad acceptability rather than just leading in first-place preferences .

Implementing pairwise comparison in large elections is complex due to the number of comparisons required. Each candidate must be compared head-to-head with every other candidate, which increases exponentially with more candidates. This can be resource and time-intensive, managing a large amount of data for accurate results, and potentially result in voter fatigue or errors in data handling .

Plurality with elimination handles ties by eliminating the candidate(s) with the fewest first-place votes, but it avoids eliminating all choices by ensuring that at least one candidate remains. If a tie elimination would remove all candidates, alternative methods are suggested to ensure a resolute selection process .

Different voting methods impact decision-making by altering how preferences are recorded and counted. In small groups, methods like plurality might speed decisions but could ignore minority viewpoints. Large groups benefit from methods like Borda Count, which consider more nuanced preferences and foster acceptance by showing a ranking consensus. Pairwise may not be practical in very large groups due to its complexity but can provide clarity in competitive scenarios by clearly delineating head-to-head losses and wins .

The Borda Count method minimizes tactical voting by accounting for all ranked preferences, discouraging voters from only voting for their top choice to manipulate outcomes. However, it is not immune to strategic manipulation, as voters can still misrepresent rankings to affect competitors' scores. Its biggest limitation is in cases of tied rankings, requiring additional rules to resolve outcomes fairly .

You might also like