B1 中級 美國腔 1307 分類 收藏
開始影片後,點擊或框選字幕可以立即查詢單字
字庫載入中…
回報字幕錯誤
'"I never voted for anybody. I always voted against." - W.C. Fields, quoted in "W.C. Fields: His Follies and Fortunes"'.
Imagine we want to build a new space port at one of four recently settled Martian bases, and are holding a vote to determine its location.
Of the hundred colonists on Mars, 42 live on West Base, 26 on North Base, 15 on South Base, and 17 on East Base.
For our purposes, let's assume that everyone prefers the space port to be as close to their base as possible, and will vote accordingly.
What is the fairest way to conduct that vote?
The most straightforward solution would be to just let each individual cast a single ballot, and choose the location with the most votes.
This is known as plurality voting, or "first past the post."
In this case, West Base wins easily, since it has more residents than any other.
And yet, most colonists would consider this the worst result, given how far it is from everyone else.
So, is plurality vote really the fairest method?
What if we tried a system like instant runoff voting, which accounts for the full range of people's preferences rather than just their top choices?
Here's how it would work.
First, voters rank each of the options from 1 to 4, and we compare their top picks.
South receives the fewest votes for first place, so it's eliminated.
Its 15 votes get allocated to those voters' second choice — East Base — giving it a total of 32.
We then compare top preferences and cut the last place option again.
This time, North Base is eliminated.
Its residents' second choice would've been South Base, but since that's already gone, the votes go to their third choice.
That gives East 58 votes over West's 42, making it the winner.
But this doesn't seem fair either.
Not only did East start out in second-to-last place, but a majority ranked it among their two least preferred options.
Instead of using rankings, we could try voting in multiple rounds, with the top two winners proceeding to a separate runoff.
Normally, this would mean West and North winning the first round, and North winning the second.
But the residents of East Base realize that while they don't have the votes to win, they can still skew the results in their favor.
In the first round, they vote for South Base instead of their own, successfully keeping North from advancing.
Thanks to this "tactical voting" by East Base residents, South wins the second round easily, despite being the least populated.
Can a system be called fair and good if it incentivizes lying about your preferences?
Maybe what we need to do is let voters express a preference in every possible head-to-head matchup.
This is known as the Condorcet method.
Consider one matchup: West versus North.
All 100 colonists vote on their preference between the two.
So that's West's 42 versus the 58 from North, South, and East, who would all prefer North.
Now do the same for the other five matchups.
The victor will be whichever base wins the most times.
Here, North wins three and South wins two.
These are indeed the two most central locations, and North has the advantage of not being anyone's least preferred choice.
So, does that make the Condorcet method an ideal voting system in general?
Not necessarily.
Consider an election with three candidates.
If voters prefer A over B, and B over C, but prefer C over A, this method fails to select a winner.
Over the decades, researchers and statisticians have come up with dozens of intricate ways of conducting and counting votes, and some have even been put into practice.
But whichever one you choose, it's possible to imagine it delivering an unfair result.
It turns out that our intuitive concept of fairness actually contains a number of assumptions that may contradict each other.
It doesn't seem fair for some voters to have more influence than others.
But nor does it seem fair to simply ignore minority preferences, or encourage people to game the system.
In fact, mathematical proofs have shown that for any election with more than two options, it's impossible to design a voting system that doesn't violate at least some theoretically desirable criteria.
So while we often think of democracy as a simple matter of counting votes, it's also worth considering who benefits from the different ways of counting them.
The United States' use of the electoral college to elect presidents instead of the popular vote has become increasingly contentious in recent years.
How exactly does this system work?
And is it fair? Or antiquated.
Find out here.
提示:點選文章或是影片下面的字幕單字,可以直接快速翻譯喔!

載入中…

載入中…

【TED-Ed】 哪種投票制度最好? (Which Voting System Is The Best? - Alex Gendler)

1307 分類 收藏
Celine Chien 發佈於 2020 年 7 月 6 日    Celine Chien 翻譯    Eunice Lin 審核
看更多推薦影片
  1. 1. 單字查詢

    在字幕上選取單字即可即時查詢單字喔!

  2. 2. 單句重複播放

    可重複聽取一句單句,加強聽力!

  3. 3. 使用快速鍵

    使用影片快速鍵,讓學習更有效率!

  4. 4. 關閉語言字幕

    進階版練習可關閉字幕純聽英文哦!

  5. 5. 內嵌播放器

    可以將英文字幕學習播放器內嵌到部落格等地方喔

  6. 6. 展開播放器

    可隱藏右方全文及字典欄位,觀看影片更舒適!

  1. 英文聽力測驗

    挑戰字幕英文聽力測驗!

  1. 點擊展開筆記本讓你看的更舒服

  1. UrbanDictionary 俚語字典整合查詢。一般字典查詢不到你滿意的解譯,不妨使用「俚語字典」,或許會讓你有滿意的答案喔