“Let people vote and let the most‑voted option win” sounds simple. It is — until you have 6 candidates for 3 posts, or 4 proposals where hardly anyone supports the same one. At that point the count system changes the result. This guide explains the 4 decisional count systems in Demokratian and when to use each one.
Why the system matters
The same set of votes can produce different winners depending on how they are counted. This is not an error: it is the nature of collective decisions. Your job as organiser is to choose the system that best reflects how you want to take the decision.
1. Unweighted voting (first-past-the-post / simple majority)
The simplest and most familiar method. Each voter selects one option (or multiple, if multi-choice). The option(s) with the highest vote count wins.
- Variant a: choose one option from the list. The most‑voted option wins.
- Variant b: choose up to N options from the list. The N most‑voted options win.
When to use:
- Binary choices (yes/no, approve/reject)
- Small number of distinct choices (2-4)
- When the most popular option is unambiguously the legitimate choice
When to avoid: with numerous candidates, a winner might secure only 30% support while remaining unacceptable to the other 70%. In such cases, the system rewards plurality rather than consensus.
Example: financial accounts approval. 87% yes, 13% no. Unweighted voting is ideal.
2. Borda count
Each voter ranks all (or some) options from most preferred to least preferred. The count assigns points per position in a linear way: if the Vote allocates N seats, the 1st preference receives N points, the 2nd N-1, …, and the N-th 1. Take care here, because this is the usual source of confusion: the scale is set by the number of seats to be filled, not the number of candidacies. With 10 candidacies for 3 seats, the first preference is worth 3 points, not 10.
Example with 4 candidacies for 4 seats and a voter who ranks C > A > D > B:
- C → 4 points
- A → 3 points
- D → 2 points
- B → 1 point
Points are aggregated across all ballots, and the candidate with the highest total score wins.
When to use:
- You want to reward the candidate most acceptable to everyone, not the one most loved by a few
- Similar choices exist and second-preference votes should carry weight
- Committee or jury decisions where consensus is preferred over strict majoritarianism
Criticism: is vulnerable to tactical voting. If you know others' preferences, you can position "your" candidate and their rivals to benefit yours.
3. Dowdall system
A variant of Borda used in Nauru since the 1970s. Same principle — ranking — but with weights that decrease much more quickly:
- 1st choice → 1 point
- 2nd choice → 1/2 point (0.5)
- 3rd choice → 1/3 point (0.33)
- 4th choice → 1/4 point (0.25)
- ...
The difference from Borda is significant: the first preference weighs far more than the next ones. Being in second place is worth half as much as being in first, not “one point less”.
When to use:
- You want to heavily reward each voter's top choice
- But you also want second and third preferences to count somewhat to prevent ties
- It serves as a balanced middle ground between "winner-takes-all" and an egalitarian Borda count
Example: internal primary elections with 6 candidates where you want the candidate with the strongest backing to win without ignoring secondary preferences.
4. STV — Single Transferable Vote (Irish tally system)
The most sophisticated system and, in many contexts, the fairest. Ireland, Malta and Australia use it for their general elections. It works for votes where there are several seats to fill (not just one).
How it works step-by-step:
- Each voter ranks the candidates in order of preference.
- You calculate the Droop quota: the minimum number of votes needed to win a seat. Formula:
votos / (puestos + 1). - First-preference votes are counted. Anyone exceeding the quota is declared elected.
- The elected candidates’ surplus votes (those above the quota) are transferred to those voters’ second preferences, proportionally.
- If no candidate reaches the quota, the lowest-ranking candidate is eliminated, and their votes are transferred to the next preference.
- This process repeats until all seats are filled.
The main advantage: no votes are wasted. If your first choice is elected with surplus votes, your vote contributes to your second choice. If your first choice is eliminated, your vote transfers as well. Proportional representation is achieved naturally.
When to use:
- Elections to multi-member bodies: governing boards, executive committees, councils.
- When there are more candidates than open seats and you want proportional representation across different viewpoints.
- Partial or full renewals of executive boards.
Criticism: the count is complex and voters sometimes do not fully understand why their candidate lost. That is why it is essential to publish the full step‑by‑step tally. Demokratian does this automatically.
Comparison table
| System | Voting method | Best suited for | Complexity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unweighted | Select 1 (or N) options | Binary decisions or few distinct choices | Very low |
| Borda | Rank all options | Building consensus, electing the most acceptable option | Medium |
| Dowdall | Rank all options | Rewarding the favourite candidate without ignoring nuance | Medium |
| STV (Irish system) | Rank candidates | Filling multiple seats with proportional representation | High |
How to configure each system in Demokratian
In the admin dashboard, when creating an election:
- Type of vote → choose between count systems (unweighted, Borda, Dowdall or VUT) or between consultation types (Survey, Debate)
- Number of Options → always shown, whatever the system. In Unweighted, Borda and Dowdall it is how many Options are elected; in STV it is the number of seats to fill. In Survey, 0 means “all”.
- Voting channel → whether people vote from their account on the platform, via a personalised link sent by email, or in both ways
- Quorum → minimum level of participation for the result to be valid. It is optional and its availability depends on the subscribed plan.
- Show detailed count → always recommended, especially in VUT
Summary and recommendations
If you need to decide and are unsure, here is our practical recommendation:
- You are deciding one thing from a few: unweighted.
- You are choosing one person/option from many and want consensus: Borda (or Dowdall if you want to reward the favourite more).
- You are choosing several people for a collegiate body: VUT.
And, above any system: always publish the full count. The transparency of the process is what gives legitimacy to the result, whatever the method used.