MATH 1030 - Voting Project 2019

Sarah Aezer, Alejandro Avelino, Jesse Tellez

Due : 2 / 10 / 2019

Part 1:

The Iowa Caucuses changed the way in which presidential candidates are selected in the

United States. Leading up to, and during the 1968 Democratic National Convention, there was

unrest in America. Protestors of Vietnam and civil rights activists wanted more accurate

representation and a better way to hold potential politicians accountable for their constituents’

needs. This all came to a head in the Chicago Riots, and from that debacle, a new system was

born.

One way in which the Iowa Caucuses are different than other primaries is that both

parties must physically be present. The democrats have a complicated and rowdy system of

voting, where voters actually stand with their preferred candidate in groups. Undecided voters

are persuaded by each group to join them. If a particular candidate falls below 15% of voters,

they are eliminated. Then, the supporters they once had are persuaded to join other candidates’

groups, etcetera. The republicans have a more straightforward approach, with a secret vote cast

on paper.

The Iowa Caucuses take place ​first ​in the nation’s presidential caucuses or primaries, and

this is perhaps the biggest reason that they are so important. A political columnist, Kathy

O’Bradovich said, ​"The really important thing to remember about Iowa is not that it's first

because it's important. Iowa is important because it's first." ​It is the first time that the public sees

how a candidate might fare in an election. Those U.S. citizens who aren’t apt to make their own
informed choices might “jump on the bandwagon” of the voters in Iowa. In addition, financial

backers are more likely to choose a candidate to support based on Iowa caucuses. Media

coverage of these caucuses is high, and this exposure brings great esteem to the Iowa Caucuses.

It also causes candidates to take a special interest in Iowa, as their political careers could greatly

benefit from Iowans’ support.

MATH 1030 - Voting Project 2019

Sarah Aezer, Alejandro Avelino, Jesse Tellez

Part 2:

I. How many people voted : 100

II. Who wins by the​ plurality method ​? Trump, with 39 votes

III.

IV.

V. Who wins by instant runoff voting? Cruz wins!!

VI. Calculate a borda count for each candidate.

VII. Who wins? Rubio wins, with 306 total points.

VIII. How many points does each candidate get using Copeland's Method?
 Rubio 3, Cruz 2, Bush 1, Trump 0

IX. Rubio wins!

X. Is there a Condorcet Winner: Yes

XI. Rubio is the condorcet winner!

 MATH 1030 - Voting Project 2019

Sarah Aezer, Alejandro Avelino, Jesse Tellez

Part 3:

By plurality vote, in which the candidate with the most first place votes wins, Trump was

the winner with 39 votes. When we tried instant runoff voting, in which the candidate with the

least first place votes is eliminated and their votes are redistributed, Cruz was the winner. After

eliminating candidates and redistributing votes two times, Cruz had 61 first place votes and

Trump remained at 39. Next, we did a borda count voting method. In a borda count, no candidate

is eliminated, and every vote (even the least preferred) is counted. Points are assigned according

to preference, and then those points are tallied up for an overall score. Rubio scored 306 points in

the borda count and won. Lastly, we tried copeland’s method of voting, in which every candidate

is individually compared to each of their opponents. The winner of each pairwise comparison

receives one point, and then all points are tallied to determine the winner. Rubio received 3

points which was higher than any other candidate, so he won according to copeland’s method. In

addition, he was the winner in every direct comparison, which makes him the condorcet winner.

Within voting theory, there are four fairness criteria that determine the validity of the

winner in an election. In this electoral experiment, we employed a number of different voting

methods and saw varied results. Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem states, “It is impossible to

devise a voting method that satisfies all four fairness criteria.” Therefore, we must form an

opinion on which criterion is most important to be met in electing a winner. We think that Rubio

should be the winner, based on his winning with copeland’s method and satisfying the condorcet

criterion which states, “If an option is preferred on every one-to-one comparison, it should be the
winner.” In addition, Rubio won the borda count, which also takes into account every vote with

no eliminations. It seems that Rubio takes the lead when every vote remains in the preference

schedule.

Bibliography

Kilen, Mike, and Des Moines Register. “The 1968 Political Protests in Chicago Upended the Way Presidents Are 

Picked.” ​USA Today​, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 21 Sept. 2018, 

www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/1968-project/2018/09/21/1968-democratic-convention-riots-iowa-cauc

us/1362446002/​. 

Prokop, Andrew. “Iowa Caucuses, Explained | Guide to the Presidential Primaries.” V

​ ox.com​, Vox Media, 2016, 
www.vox.com/a/presidential-primaries-2016-republican-democrat/iowa-caucuses-explained.