Sunteți pe pagina 1din 7

MATH 1030 - Voting Project 2016 Names of Group Members:

Pedro Rico

Due: Anissa Archuleta

The Iowa Caucuses


Part I: Research the Iowa Caucuses and explain how they work. Your response should be
a one-page (250-word) narrative. Be sure to include a brief history, how a caucus
differs from a typical primary election, and why the Iowa Caucuses play such an
important role in American presidential elections.

Part II: Imagine you live in Mason City, Iowa and attend a Republican caucus for Precinct
W1-P2 at the Highland Golf Course. The meeting organizers ask the voters to
select their preferences for four candidates. The following preference schedule
summarizes the results of the poll.

# Voters 19 6 36 39
1st B R C T
2nd R B R R
3rd C C B C
4th T T T B

B is Jeb Bush, C is Ted Cruz, R is Marco Rubio, and T is Donald Trump

Use this preference schedule to answer the following questions about various
voting methods. Vocabulary words in bold are defined in the Voting Theory section
in Math in Society .

i. How many people voted? 100

ii. Who wins by Plurality Method? Donald Trump


Part II: (Continued)

iii. Suppose we use Instant Runoff Voting. Remove the candidate with the
least 1st Choice votes and show the preference schedule.

# Voters 19 6 36 39
1st B B C T
2nd C C B C
3rd T T T B

iv. Remove the candidate with the least 1st Choice votes and show the
preference schedule.

# Voters 19 6 36 39
1st C C C T
2nd T T T C

v. Who wins by Instant Runoff Voting? Ted Cruz

vi. Calculate a Borda Count for each candidate.

B: 205 C: 272

R: 306 T: 217

vii. Who wins by Borda Count? Marco Rubio

viii. How many points does each candidate get using Copeland's Method?

B: 1 C: 2

R: 3 T: 0

ix. Who wins by Copeland's Method? Marco Rubio

x. Is there a Condorcet Candidate? Y or N

xi. If so, who is the Condorcet Candidate? Marco Rubio


Part III: Imagine that the members of your group are selected as the delegates from
Precinct W1-P2 and you must agree on one candidate to support at the Cerro
Gordo County Convention. Write a one-page (250-word) discussion explaining
who won the election. The discussion should include your interpretation of your
calculations in Part II and which fairness criteria helped you choose a winner.

There is no right answer (see Arrow's Impossibility Theorem). As a group it is your


job to make a decision and defend that decision in your discussion.
Part I.

The Iowa Caucuses are events in which several delegates are chosen from Iowas many
precincts for the purpose of choosing delegates to represent all of Iowas counties. Theres not
one singular caucus, but several that take place. GOP candidates are tallied with total number
of votes while Democratic candidates are chosen with preference voting methods. The GOP
voting is a secret ballot while the Democratic voting ballot is not. While caucus voting is
geographically based to smaller regions within a state, primary voting is a statewide ballot.
Caucus voting allows voters to elect delegates to represent their votes and primary voting
allows voters to cast their own personal, secret preferred choice. The caucus system has been
utilized in the U.S. since the eighteenth century as a means of encouraging citizens to gather
and engage in civil affairs. No regulations bound caucuses until the nineteenth century after
many saw manipulations within the system. This negative connotation associated with the term
led to the displacement of the caucus system with the primary voting method. This explains why
only a few states still use the caucus system. The main reason the Iowa caucuses hold such
importance is due to the fact that Iowa is the first state in which votes are cast in other words,
candidates either pick up or lose their momentum from Iowas results. Results show which
candidates are the most popular or who can sustain their votes and public support. So while
other states have primary voting, the Iowa caucuses can heavily influence those states by
making candidates appear either as successes or failures.

Part II.

# of Voters 19 6 36 39

1st B R C T

2nd R B R R

3rd C C B C

4th T T T B

B is Jeb Bush, C is Ted Cruz, R is Marco Rubio, and T is Donald Trump

i. How many people voted? 100

19 + 6 + 36 + 39 = 100

ii. Who wins by Plurality Method? Donald Trump

# of Voters 19 6 36 39

1st B R C T

B: 19 C: 36 R: 6 T: 39
iii.

# of Voters 19 6 36 39

1st B B C T

2nd C C B C

3rd T T T B

B: 19 + 6 = 5 C: 36 T: 39

iv.

# of Voters 19 6 36 39

1st C C C T

2nd T T T C

C: 19 + 6 + 36 = 61 T: 39

v. Who wins by Instant Run-Off Voting? Ted Cruz

vi.
# of Voters 19 6 36 39

1st B R C T

2nd R B R R

3rd C C B C

4th T T T B

1st Place gets 4 points, 2nd Place gets 3 points, 3rd Place gets 2 points and 4th Place gets 1 point

B: 19(4) + 6(3) + 36(2) + 39 = 205


C: 36(4) + 19(2) + 6(2) + 39(2) = 272
R: 6(4) + 19(3) + 36(3) + 39(3) = 306
T: 39(4) + 19 + 6 + 36 = 217

vii. Who wins by Borda Count? Marco Rubio


viii. How many points does each candidate get using Copelands Method?

# of Voters 19 6 36 39

1st B R C T

2nd R B R R

3rd C C B C

4th T T T B

B vs C B: 19 + 6 = 25 C: 36 + 39 = 75 C: 1
B vs R B: 19 R: 6 + 36 + 39 = 81 R: 1
B vs T B: 19 + 6 + 36 = 61 T: 39 B: 1
C vs R C: 36 R: 19 + 6 + 39 = 61 R: 1
C vs T C: 19 + 6 + 36 = 61 T: 39 C: 1
R vs T R: 19 + 6 + 36 = 61 T: 39 R: 1

B: 1 C: 1 + 1 = 2 R: 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 T: 0

ix. Who wins by Copelands Method? Marco Rubio

x. Is there a Condorcet Candidate? Yes

# of Voters 19 6 36 39

1st B R C T

2nd R B R R

3rd C C B C

4th T T T B

B vs C B: 19 + 6 = 25 C: 36 + 39 = 75 C: 1
B vs R B: 19 R: 6 + 36 + 39 =81 R: 1
B vs T B: 19 + 6 +36 = 61 T: 39 B: 1
C vs R C: 36 R: 19 + 6 + 39 = 61 R: 1
C vs T C: 19 + 6 + 36 = 61 T: 39 C: 1
R vs T R: 19 + 6 + 36 = 61 T: 39 R: 1

B: 1 C: 1 + 1 =2 R: 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 T: 0

xi. If so, who is the Condorcet Candidate? Marco Rubio


Part III.

We took this part seriously, meaning we were were able to place ourselves into the positions of
these delegates in the Iowa Caucus. We took a moment to look over the information that was
given to us, we discussed how the plurality method was unrepresentative of the whole, and how
the name plurality was misleading. Superficially it looks like Trump garnered all the votes,
however after a careful analysis of the voting information in addition to using the fairness
criterion, we were able to discern the voters true preferences so after reviewing the multiple
voting methods, we decided that the fairness criteria worked for the final vote. By looking at both
the Borda count method and Copeland method the winner was Rubio. Rubio was also the
Condorcet candidate which is why we chose him to be the winner. With multiple methods in
favor for Rubio it was a decision best represented by the people. Yet, we did discuss amongst
ourselves about whether the decision would be perceived as unfair.

First, we thought is it right to ignore plurality we thought through a dictum that, if one has the
most votes, that person is the winner. This was good, we were able to have discussion about
the position we took over the plurality method. First we mentioned that the constituents
preferred any candidate over Trump, because of the way they had voted. Secondly by
implementing the fairness criterion we can easily tell that Trump was least preferred by using
the Copeland and Borda Count Method on top of that we can easily get a good picture by using
the Condorcet method which still favored Rubio over Trump. If Iowa had to choose again
knowing that the outcome of the plurality method, would they have changed their votes to a
candidate that would have won? Obviously this encourages insincere voting. Once again
referring back to Arrows Impossibility Theorem, how can we be so sure that the population
would truly prefer Rubio over Trump? And by choosing a candidate that was least favored is that
truly democratic? It goes to show you that when it comes to politics, one must have a strong
message otherwise they lose to plurality. Weve digressed, getting back to the matter at hand,
we as delegates believe that Rubio would be the preferred candidate over any of the other
nominee and have decided to allocate all votes to him.