Borda Count Special Rules of Order
AIP's Parliamentary Journal (April 2007)
Special Rules of Order
for the
Implementation of Elections using the Borda Count Voting System
Suggested by
John D. Stackpole, January 13, 2007
With a few [bracketed] notes
that are not part of the rules per se
There is a great deal to be said in favor of the Borda Count system of doing elections, or making other decisions, when there are more than two candidates or options from which to select. This will be expanded upon in a forthcoming article but in case anybody is interested in getting a head start on implementing the system in their own group, or a client’s organization, here are a set of special rules of order that can be adopted to do so. Within some of the rules are found a few explanatory comments, set off in [brackets]; these most likely should not appear in the rules as adopted, but they may be of value in learning a little about the system.
So away we go…
1. Ballots shall be prepared bearing the names of all nominated candidates in alphabetical order.
2. Voters shall be required to rank all the listed candidates on the ballot, indicating their first preferred choice with a “1” (or an “A”), their second choice with a “2” (or a “B”), third choice with a “3” (or “C”), &c, until all candidates are ranked. A ranking character need not be supplied for the bottom ranked, or last, choice. [Note: If there are only two candidates, this all defaults to a “normal” election.]
3. Ballots with incomplete rankings or that indicate two, or more, candidates with the same positional or numerical ranking shall be discarded prior to any tabulations. [Note: Electronic voting machines could be programmed to enforce this rule by not accepting incomplete ballots.]
4. Write-in votes or rankings for non-nominated candidates shall not be permitted. Any ballots containing non-nominated candidates shall be discarded prior to any tabulations. [Note: This rule should, properly, be in the bylaws since it puts a non-Robertian limitation on the voters’ freedoms. It is necessary because all the candidates have to be known to all the voters in order for the Borda Count to “work” properly. It can also be enforced by voting machines.]
5. Single ballots may contain different sections for different elective offices. The votes or rankings in each section shall be tabulated independently as though they were on separate ballots.
6. The tellers shall tabulate the votes by the following method:
6.1 For each ballot containing a number N of candidates for a particular office, the first ranked choice shall be given a score of (N-1) points, the second ranked choice shall be given a score of (N-2) points, the third choice (N-3) points, &c., with the last or bottom ranked candidate being given (N-N) (zero) points.
6.2 The sum of all the points, using all of the complete ballots, shall be computed for each listed candidate independently. [Note: This can get to be a long and intricate job. There is no free lunch. Voting machines could help.]
6.3 The total number of points received by each candidate shall be recorded in the Teller’s Report, independently for each possible office, ordered by the number of points received, largest first.
7. The winner of the election for a given office shall be the candidate receiving the largest number of points. If multiple positions are to be filled, as on a board, the winners shall be the appropriate number of candidates receiving the greatest number of points in sequence from the highest on down..
8. Ties shall be resolved by repeated voting. [Note: for a “large” group ties are highly unlikely. One could resolve ties by lot or something else, if this is a concern.]
An extended note:
It is quite possible, in the Borda Count system, that an actual majority winner – counting first place votes only – will not be selected as the top point recipient. This is generally a possibility only if the election is relatively close, the electorate is essentially split between two candidates, and most of the voters rank a third candidate as their collective “second choice”. If this makes you uncomfortable (it sure does so to me – some three thousand years of “majority rule” decisions is not something to be lightly cast aside) you could include this additional rule, inserted prior to Rule 6.1 above:
6.01 The completed ballots shall be initially tabulated taking account of only the first choice votes. If any candidate receives a majority of first choice votes (where the majority is with respect to the total number of ballots cast), all the first choice tabulation results shall be reported by the Tellers and the candidate achieving a majority shall be declared the winner. If there is no majority winner, the tabulation of the ballots shall proceed as follows. [Note: a plurality “winner” – there will always be one, barring ties – does not get elected. If no majority winner, do the full Borda count.]
This “first choice majority wins” rule is not a portion of the “standard” Borda Count system. It has the effect of excluding the possibility of a generally well favored “second choice” candidate – RONR’s “dark horse” – from being elected. Whether to include the additional rule, or not, is a matter of compromise between a first choice majority system of election and one, the Borda Count, that takes account of the full spectrum of the voters’ preferences in a systematic manner. At least there is the saving grace that if a candidate is preferred as the top choice by a substantial supermajority of the voters, he will be elected by either the vote-for-one first choice or the Borda Count system (or virtually all other vote tabulating systems, for that matter).