Exactly. And (since all voting methods are flawed in some direction), the question is what do you prioritize in elections: the will of the majority, or the "acceptable" choice of even more people.
Personally, I think Borda is terrible.
Let's suppose the 2016 election was: Clinton, Trump, some milquetoast Republican like Jeb Bush, and someone everyone hated, bringing to total to 4.
Suppose 73% of the population were fanatical Clinton fans. However, they didn't want Trump to win, so they voted Jeb #2, even though they'd much rather he didn't win. The 27% of Trump voters also listed Jeb #2.
Jeb would win, in this case, even though he was a distant second choice for 73% of the population.
(100 * 3 points > 73 * 4 points).
Even worse would be if there were 5 or 6 candidates. Now every Clinton #1 vote is worth 6, and every Jeb #2 vote is worth 5. Jeb would win even if 83% of the voters were fanatical Clinton fans.
There's no way to distinguish your second vote as "this person is also great" vs "this person is the least worst alternative." The only way to not let your far-distant second choice win is to not vote for them at all, or recruit extra candidates as shields for your preferred candidate. But then we're bringing in strategic voting and all sorts of other messiness.
Personally, I think Borda is terrible.
Let's suppose the 2016 election was: Clinton, Trump, some milquetoast Republican like Jeb Bush, and someone everyone hated, bringing to total to 4.
Suppose 73% of the population were fanatical Clinton fans. However, they didn't want Trump to win, so they voted Jeb #2, even though they'd much rather he didn't win. The 27% of Trump voters also listed Jeb #2.
Jeb would win, in this case, even though he was a distant second choice for 73% of the population.
(100 * 3 points > 73 * 4 points).
Even worse would be if there were 5 or 6 candidates. Now every Clinton #1 vote is worth 6, and every Jeb #2 vote is worth 5. Jeb would win even if 83% of the voters were fanatical Clinton fans.
There's no way to distinguish your second vote as "this person is also great" vs "this person is the least worst alternative." The only way to not let your far-distant second choice win is to not vote for them at all, or recruit extra candidates as shields for your preferred candidate. But then we're bringing in strategic voting and all sorts of other messiness.