# 8. Agenda Control ## 8.5. Methodology/Refinements/Sub-species ### 8.5.4. Vote design In most democratic or pseudo-democratic institutions the voting methods used are embodied in some kind of constitution. However, constitutions usually deal only with matters such as the minimum majority required for the passage of a motion, quorum size etc., and not with the order in which votes are taken. The objective of vote design is to select a system of voting which will guarantee that a desired alternative is endorsed or that an undesirable result is avoided. In less rigorously organized votes, such as those found in labour disputes and informal meetings, there are no restrictions on the agenda setter or promoter of a motion in using this method. Take the classical example described by Pliny the Younger in the Roman senate. A number of slaves had been accused of murdering their lord. There was some possibility of his suicide or of the slaves having been asked to kill the old man because he was terminally sick. They were to be tried by a jury. After their hearing the jury was split in its opinion. The alternatives were acquittal, banishment, or death. The jury was split as follows: > Acquitters 45% > Banishers 35% > Executioners 20% In other words, a majority of the jury felt the slaves to be guilty of either murder or assisting in the suicide of their master. However, more of the jury believed in acquittal than in either other choice. Pliny personally believed that the slaves were completely innocent and he was thus in favour of their acquittal. He also happened to be the court's presiding officer. He recognized that the "Banishers" were more in favour of acquittal than death, that the "Executioners" were more in favour of banishment than acquittal and that the "Acquitters" were more in favour of banishment than death. He also realized that he couldn't bring about acquittal using the normal voting method because the majority was saying "guilty". What Pliny decided was to adopt a tripartite approach to the problem, in which he assumed that each of the jury's options was exclusive to the others. In order to do this he had to avoid the question of "innocent or guilty" and so he employed a so-called ternary voting method instead of the more usual binary voting order. In the binary scenario, the jury would be asked first, "guilty or innocent?" followed in this case, by "Death or Banishment?" The majority believed the prisoners guilty, but the majority were also against the death penalty and so the prisoners would certainly be banished. But using the ternary method, Pliny simply asked "death, banishment or acquittal?", and required those in favour of each option to go and seat themselves together in separate places. The group with the largest number of supporters was to represent the decision of the court. In this case of course, the largest numbers sat with the "acquitters" with 45% and Pliny had his own way. He got himself into a certain amount of bother for this trickery, although he claims that he knew of no precedent for not using this method of voting. Naturally the method relies upon the victims voting myopically but since this is what most people do, the technique is successful in either achieving the desired result or some next best alternative for the manipulator.