Which voting system is the best? - Alex Gendler

Prevodilac: Ivana Krivokuca Lektor: Ivana Korom

Imagine we want to build a new space port

Zamislite da hoćemo da izgradimo novo svemirsko pristanište

at one of four recently settled Martian bases,

u jednoj od četiri nedavno naseljene baze na Marsu,

and are holding a vote to determine its location.

i sprovodimo glasanje da bismo mu odredili lokaciju.

Of the hundred colonists on Mars, 42 live on West Base, 26 on North Base,

Od stotinu kolonista Marsa, njih 42 živi u Zapadnoj bazi, 26 u Severnoj bazi,

15 on South Base, and 17 on East Base.

15 u Južnoj bazi i 17 u Istočnoj bazi.

For our purposes, let’s assume that everyone prefers the space port

Za potrebe ove situacije, pretpostavimo da svima odgovara da pristanište

to be as close to their base as possible, and will vote accordingly.

bude što je moguće bliže njihovoj bazi i da će glasati shodno tome.

What is the fairest way to conduct that vote?

Koji je najpravedniji način za sprovođenje tog glasanja?

The most straightforward solution would be to just let each individual

Najjednostavnije rešenje bi bilo dozvoliti svakom pojedincu

cast a single ballot, and choose the location with the most votes.

da da jedan glas, i odabrati lokaciju koja ima najviše glasova.

This is known as plurality voting, or "first past the post."

To je poznato kao većinsko ili pluralno glasanje.

In this case, West Base wins easily,

U ovom slučaju, Zapadna baza lako pobeđuje,

since it has more residents than any other.

jer ima više stanovnika od ostalih.

And yet, most colonists would consider this the worst result,

A ipak, većina naseljenika bi to smatrala najgorim rezultatom,

given how far it is from everyone else.

s obzirom na njenu udaljenost od svih ostalih.

So is plurality vote really the fairest method?

Dakle, da li je većinsko glasanje zaista najpravedniji metod?

What if we tried a system like instant runoff voting,

Šta ako bismo probali sistem poput rangiranog glasanja

which accounts for the full range of people’s preferences

koje uzima u obzir pun spektar preferencija ljudi,

rather than just their top choices?

umesto samo njihove glavne izbore?

Here’s how it would work.

Evo kako bi to izgledalo.

First, voters rank each of the options from 1 to 4,

Najpre, glasači rangiraju sve opcije od prve do četvrte,

and we compare their top picks.

i uporedimo njihove glavne odabire.

South receives the fewest votes for first place, so it’s eliminated.

Jug dobija najmanje glasova za prvo mesto, pa biva eliminisan.

Its 15 votes get allocated to those voters’ second choice—

Njegovih 15 glasova se dodeljuje drugom izboru tih glasača -

East Base— giving it a total of 32.

Istočnoj bazi - koja time dobija 32 glasa.

We then compare top preferences and cut the last place option again.

Zatim uporedimo glavne preferencije

i ponovo odbacimo opciju na poslednjem mestu.

This time North Base is eliminated.

Ovoga puta je Severna baza eliminisana.

Its residents’ second choice would’ve been South Base,

Drugi izbor njenih glasača bila bi Južna baza,

but since that’s already gone, the votes go to their third choice.

ali pošto je ona uklonjena, glasovi idu trećoj opciji.

That gives East 58 votes over West’s 42, making it the winner.

Time Istok dobija 58 glasova, naspram 42 glasa Zapada,

i postaje pobednik.

But this doesn’t seem fair either.

Ali ni to ne deluje fer.

Not only did East start out in second-to-last place,

Ne samo da je Istok počeo na pretposlednjem mestu,

but a majority ranked it among their two least preferred options.

već ga je većina rangirala među dve najmanje poželjne opcije.

Instead of using rankings, we could try voting in multiple rounds,

Umesto rangiranja, mogli bismo pokušati sa glasanjem u više krugova,

with the top two winners proceeding to a separate runoff.

pri čemu će dva glavna pobednika preći u zaseban krug.

Normally, this would mean West and North winning the first round,

To bi trebalo da znači da će Zapad i Sever pobediti u prvom krugu,

and North winning the second.

i da će Sever pobediti u drugom.

But the residents of East Base realize

Ali stanovnici Istočne baze shvataju da,

that while they don’t have the votes to win,

iako nemaju dovoljno glasova da bi pobedili,

they can still skew the results in their favor.

i dalje mogu da okrenu rezultate u svoju korist.

In the first round, they vote for South Base instead of their own,

U prvom krugu glasaju za Južnu bazu umesto za svoju,

successfully keeping North from advancing.

čime uspešno sprečavaju da Sever prednjači.

Thanks to this "tactical voting" by East Base residents,

Zahvaljujući ovom „taktičnom glasanju” stanovnika Istočne baze,

South wins the second round easily, despite being the least populated.

Jug lako pobeđuje u drugom krugu, uprkos njegovoj najmanjoj naseljenosti.

Can a system be called fair and good if it incentivizes lying

Da li se sistem može nazvati pravednim i dobrim ako podstiče laganje

about your preferences?

u vezi sa preferencijama?

Maybe what we need to do is let voters express a preference

Možda bi trebalo da dozvolimo glasačima da se izjasne šta bi više želeli

in every possible head-to-head matchup.

u svakom mogućem suprotstavljenom paru.

This is known as the Condorcet method.

To je poznato kao Kondorseov metod.

Consider one matchup: West versus North.

Uzmimo jedan par: Zapad naspram Severa.

All 100 colonists vote on their preference between the two.

Svih 100 kolonista glasa između njih dvoje.

So that's West's 42 versus the 58 from North, South, and East,

U tom slučaju bi za Zapad glasalo 42, dok bi 58 glasova dali Sever, Jug i Istok,

who would all prefer North.

a koji su za Sever.

Now do the same for the other five matchups.

Sada uradimo isto za ostalih pet parova.

The victor will be whichever base wins the most times.

Pobednik će biti onaj čija baza pobedi najveći broj puta.

Here, North wins three and South wins two.

Tako Sever pobeđuje tri puta, a Jug pobeđuje dva puta.

These are indeed the two most central locations,

To zaista jesu dve najznačajnije lokacije,

and North has the advantage of not being anyone’s least preferred choice.

i Sever ima tu prednost da nije ničiji najmanje omiljeni izbor.

So does that make the Condorcet method an ideal voting system in general?

Da li to znači da je Kondorseov metod, opšte uzev, idealan sistem glasanja?

Not necessarily.

Ne nužno.

Consider an election with three candidates.

Uzmimo glasanje između tri kandidata.

If voters prefer A over B, and B over C, but prefer C over A,

Ako su glasači više za A nego za B, i više za B nego za C, ali više za C nego za A,

this method fails to select a winner.

ovaj metod neuspešno bira pobednika.

Over the decades, researchers and statisticians have come up with

Kroz decenije, istraživači i statističari su smišljali

dozens of intricate ways of conducting and counting votes,

desetine složenih načina sprovođenja glasanja i brojanja glasova,

and some have even been put into practice.

od kojih su neki bili i primenjeni u praksi.

But whichever one you choose,

Ali koji god da odaberete,

it's possible to imagine it delivering an unfair result.

moguća je pretpostavka da će dati nepravedan rezultat.

It turns out that our intuitive concept of fairness

Ispostavlja se da naš intuitivni koncept pravičnosti

actually contains a number of assumptions that may contradict each other.

u stvari obuhvata više pretpostavki koje mogu biti oprečne.

It doesn’t seem fair for some voters to have more influence than others.

Ne čini se pravednim da neki glasači imaju veći uticaj od drugih.

But nor does it seem fair to simply ignore minority preferences,

Ali ne deluje fer ni da se preferencije manjina prosto ignorišu,

or encourage people to game the system.

niti da se ljudi podstiču da nameštaju sistem.

In fact, mathematical proofs have shown that for any election

Zapravo, matematički dokazi su pokazali da je u slučaju svakog izbora

with more than two options,

koji ima više od dve opcije

it’s impossible to design a voting system that doesn’t violate

nemoguće osmisliti sistem glasanja koji ne narušava

at least some theoretically desirable criteria.

bar neke teoretski poželjne kriterijume.

So while we often think of democracy as a simple matter of counting votes,

Iako često smatramo da je demokratija prosto stvar prebrojavanja glasova,

it’s also worth considering who benefits from the different ways of counting them.

vredi uzeti u obzir i ko ima koristi od raznih načina na koji se oni broje.