Contact Us What It Is Price List Testimonials Clients List Home How It Works What It Is

A Solution to The Difficulties of Multi-Voting…

The beauty of ConCensus™ is simply that it reduces all variables and what-ifs and rankings of importance into simple 2-way races. Consciously and sub-consciously we can and do make decisions between two items relatively quickly and with a feeling of finality, automatically taking into account all of the known and unknown influences to each pair-decision.

An article released by the University of California in San Diego (1998), "Chaos at the Polls: Mathematicians Prove that Group Decisions Can Be Impossible To Predict", indicates:

"Meyer and Brown proved through a mathematical model that if the group's options are presented in different orders — even when their preferences are fixed — the result will become unpredictable, even 'chaotic'."

But with ConCensus™, the order is irrelevant since all factors are compared only two at a time.

Any doubts as to the mathematical veracity of our system as compared to others were dispelled upon reading "A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper" by John Allen Paulos, Professor of Mathematics at Temple University. The book is dedicated to debunking the intimidating nature of the mathematical spin-doctoring that we are subjected to every day. In it, there is a wonderful chapter that describes the balloting (listing 5 candidates in order of preference) by 55 voting members in a state caucus as follows:

This resulted in the following matrix:

Number of Delegates

1st ChoiceTCBKHH
2nd ChoiceKHCBCB
3rd ChoiceHKHHKK
4th ChoiceBBKCBC
5th ChoiceCTTTTT

T=Tsongas; C=Clinton; B=Brown; K=Kerrey; H=Harkin.


He goes on to show how every single candidate was able to mathematically justify his case for being a winner!

"Tsongas supporters stolidly argued that the plurality method, whereby the candidate with the most first-place votes wins, should be used. With this method and eighteen first-place votes, Tsongas wins easily.

"At the end of a very short time, a solution we can live with is clearly apparent."

"Ever alert for a comeback, Clinton supporters argued that there should be a runoff between the two candidates receiving the most first-place votes. Clinton handily beats Tsongas in such a runoff (18 prefer Tsongas to Clinton, but 37 prefer Clinton to Tsongas).

"Brown's people suggested that the candidate with the fewest first-place votes (Harkin) should be eliminated first; then the first-place votes for the others should be adjusted. This process continues by removing at each stage the one with the fewest first-place votes. Brown ends up the winner.

"Kerrey's campaign manager remonstrated that more attention should be paid to overall rankings... First-place = 5 points, Second-place = 4 points, etc. Kerrey's count of 191 is higher than anybody else so he wins.

"Finally, Harkin, being a more macho sort, responded that only man-to-man contests should count and that, pit against any of the other four candidates in a two-person race, he comes out the winner (he beats Kerrey 28-27 and Clinton 33-22)."

When we converted the figures in the table as if our own ConCensus™ System were being used, always selecting between only two candidates at a time, it resulted in the following order of prioritization:

Harkin         4
Kerrey         3
Brown          2
Clinton        1
Tsongas      0

Lo and behold, at the end of a very short time period during which all such pairs are compared, a solution we can live with (individually and as a group) is clearly apparent.