Evangelos Pournaras, Srijoni Majumdar, Thomas Wellings, Joshua C. Yang, Fatemeh B. Heravan, Regula Hänggli Fricker, Dirk Helbing

Voting methods are instrumental design element of democracies. Citizens use them to express and aggregate their preferences to reach a collective decision. However, voting outcomes can be as sensitive to voting rules as they are to people’s voting choices. Despite the significance and inter-disciplinary scientific progress on voting methods, several democracies keep relying on outdated voting methods that do not fit modern, pluralistic societies well, while lacking social innovation. Here, we demonstrate how one can upgrade real-world democracies, namely by using alternative preferential voting methods such as cumulative voting and the method of equal shares designed for a proportional representation of voters’ preferences. By rigorously assessing a new participatory budgeting approach applied in the city of Aarau, Switzerland, we unravel the striking voting outcomes of fair voting methods: more winning projects with the same budget and broader geographic and preference representation of citizens by the elected projects, in particular for voters who used to be under-represented, while promoting novel project ideas. We provide profound causal evidence showing that citizens prefer proportional voting methods, which possess strong legitimacy without the need of very technical specialized explanations. We also reveal strong underlying democratic values exhibited by citizens who support fair voting methods such as altruism and compromise. These findings come with a global momentum to unleash a new and long-awaited participation blueprint of how to upgrade democracies.

Read the full article at: arxiv.org

Linzhuo Li, Yiling Lin, Lingfei Wu

Using large-scale citation data and a breakthrough metric, the study systematically evaluates the inevitability of scientific breakthroughs. We find that scientific breakthroughs emerge as multiple discoveries rather than singular events. Through analysis of over 40 million journal articles, we identify multiple discoveries as papers that independently displace the same reference using the Disruption Index (D-index), suggesting functional equivalence. Our findings support Merton’s core argument that scientific discoveries arise from historical context rather than individual genius. The results reveal a long-tail distribution pattern of multiple discoveries across various datasets, challenging Merton’s Poisson model while reinforcing the structural inevitability of scientific progress.

Read the full article at: arxiv.org