Piner High School STEM Certificate

Level One Response

Josiah Smith

Presentation Title: The Voting Paradox

Presenter: Natalie Hobson

Date: October 8, 2020

During her presentation “The Voting Paradox”, Natalie Hobson talked about the various

voting systems that could be used in a hypothetical election. She demonstrated how each system

would work, and how different systems could yield different results. She also went over the pros

and cons of each, and why certain systems are used more often than others. Finally, she held a

discussion about which voting systems those attending the presentation preferred.

In the virtual election, 27 people voted for 4 candidates, ranking them from most

preferred to least preferred. Natalie then used the table to determine which candidate won the

election for each different voting

system. The first voting system that was

used was the Plurality Voting System.

When using this system, the winner is

determined by whoever has the greatest

number of first-place votes. In this

system, a voter’s first candidate is given a vote, while the other candidates are not. After tallying
the votes with this method, Germain (G) is the winner if this system is used. He received twelve

first-place votes; more than any other candidate. The second system that Natalie used was the

Borda Count System. For each voter ballot, points are awarded to each candidate according to

the following:

First-Place ranking - 3 points

Second-Place ranking - 2 points

Third-Place ranking - 1 point

Fourth-Place ranking - 0 points

The winner of the electing using this method is the candidate who earns the greatest number of

points. In this case, Banneker (B) is the winner of the election.

The third voting method used is the Instant Runoff System. In this system, the candidate

with the least number of first-place votes is eliminated from each voter’s preference order. The

remaining candidates are then moved up on each preference order. This is repeated until one

candidate remains. When using this

method, the first candidate to be

eliminated is Ramanujan (R), because

he received the least number of

first-place votes. After he is eliminated, each voter’s preferences are moved up, and the ballots

change. Both Banneker and Germain are eliminated in the following rounds, and Noether is the

winner of the election. The final voting system that Natalie showed was the Sequential Pairwise

Voting System. In this system, a sequence of two-candidate elections is held in a predetermined

order. The candidate that receives the most votes in the election moves to the next round until

there is only one candidate left. This system is similar to a bracket that is used in many sports.

When this system is used, Ramanujan is the winner of the election.

Reflection:

I think that Natalie Hobson did a great job of explaining what different voting systems

are used today, and how each one can yield a different result from the others. I think that have a

theoretical election helped demonstrate how the systems work, and how each one could be

perceived as good or bad by the candidates. I had previously known that there were different

types of voting systems that could be used but did not know the specifics of how they work, and

what makes them different from other methods. I also found it interesting that each voting

method yielded a different winner, showcasing how there is not a perfect system that is

considered fair by everyone.

One of the most surprising things I learned from the presentation was how changing the

way that votes are counted could change the result of the election so dramatically. Before the

presentation, I had assumed that the results would be similar, with the same candidates always at

the top. However, I couldn’t have been more wrong. Each voting method produced a different

winner. This lead to me questioning how our own voting system works, and how elections could

have been changed if a different voting system were used.

The most important takeaway I got from the presentation was the importance of

understanding how a voting system works, and how your ranking of candidates will affect the
election. Knowledge of how a vote will be counted. The candidates that a voter put for their

second, third, and fourth rank would influence the election if a Borda Count system were used

but would have no effect of a Plurality Voting system was used. The presentation really

reinstated the idea that everyone’s votes do count, and just one vote can change the outcome of a

whole election.

Supporting Article:

- Author - Richard Gonzales

- Date - November 6, 2004

- Title - San Francisco Tries ‘No Runoff’ Voting Method

The article I chose to support the presentation is called “San Francisco Tries ‘No Runoff’

Voting Method”. It was about how in 2004, San Francisco decided to adopt a new style of

voting for their elections, and how this change affected voters and the outcome of the election.

Richard explains how despite the new system being better than what was used before, there was

some trouble implementing it that caused some to be skeptical over its fairness. Trouble with

software was the main reason people were concerned. This article directly relates to the

presentation because it shows how confusing witching to a new voting method can be, and how

no system can be considered by all parties to be fair. Gonzales interviewed Steven Hill, the

person who campaigned for the system to be switched. Hill talked about how there were 4

county seat elections that were still underway, and that those would have been over of the old

system, had still been in use. Hill calls the new system “a victory for San Francisco”.