|
Majority Criterion
The majority criterion is a single-winner voting system criterion, used to compare such systems. The criterion states that "if one candidate is ranked first by a majority (more than 50%) of voters, then that candidate must win". Some methods that comply with this criterion include any Condorcet method, Instant-runoff voting, Bucklin voting, and Plurality voting. The criterion was originally defined in relation to methods which rely only on ranked ballots (voted preference orders of the candidates), so while ranked methods such as the Borda count fail the criterion under any definition, its application to methods which give weight to preference strength is disputed. For these methods, such as STAR voting, Score (Range) voting, Approval voting and Majority Judgment, the system may pass or fail depending on the definition of the criterion which is used. Advocates of other voting systems contend that the majority criterion is actually a ''flaw'' of a voting system, and not a featur ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Voting System
An electoral system or voting system is a set of rules that determine how elections and referendums are conducted and how their results are determined. Electoral systems are used in politics to elect governments, while non-political elections may take place in business, non-profit organisations and informal organisations. These rules govern all aspects of the voting process: when elections occur, who is allowed to vote, who can stand as a candidate, how ballots are marked and cast, how the ballots are counted, how votes translate into the election outcome, limits on campaign spending, and other factors that can affect the result. Political electoral systems are defined by constitutions and electoral laws, are typically conducted by election commissions, and can use multiple types of elections for different offices. Some electoral systems elect a single winner to a unique position, such as prime minister, president or governor, while others elect multiple winners, such as memb ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Peter Emerson
Peter Emerson (born 1943) is a political activist in Northern Ireland. Born in Britain, Emerson's father was from County Cork, and his mother from Cheshire. He served as a submariner in the Royal Navy, where he was promoted to first lieutenant. In 1970, he began teaching in Nairobi. He moved to Northern Ireland in 1975, living just off the Shankill Road, where he worked in a youth club.Good to meet you... Peter Emerson , '''', 20 July 2012 There, he became active in the and also with [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Mutual Majority Criterion
The mutual majority criterion is a criterion used to compare voting systems. It is also known as the majority criterion for solid coalitions and the generalized majority criterion. The criterion states that if there is a subset S of the candidates, such that more than half of the voters strictly prefer every member of S to every candidate outside of S, this majority voting sincerely, the winner must come from S. This is similar to but stricter than the majority criterion, where the requirement applies only to the case that ''S'' contains a single candidate. This is also stricter than the majority loser criterion, where the requirement applies only to the case that ''S'' contains all but one candidate. The mutual majority criterion is the single-winner case of the Droop proportionality criterion. The Schulze method, ranked pairs, instant-runoff voting, Nanson's method, and Bucklin voting pass this criterion. All Smith-efficient Condorcet methods pass the mutual majority criterion ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Bullet Voting
Bullet voting, also known as single-shot voting and plump voting, is a voting tactic, usually in multiple-winner elections, where a voter is entitled to vote for more than one candidate, but instead votes for only one candidate. A voter might do this because it is easier than evaluating all the candidates or as a form of tactical voting. Voters can use this tactic to maximize the chance that their favorite candidate will be elected while increasing the risk that other favored candidates will lose. A group of voters using this tactic consistently has a better chance of one favorite candidate being elected. Election systems that satisfy the later-no-harm criterion discourage any value in bullet voting. These systems either do not ask for lower preferences (like plurality) or promise to ignore lower preferences unless all higher preferences are eliminated. Some elections have tried to disallow bullet voting and require the casting of multiple votes because it can empower minority vot ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Controversy
Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view. The word was coined from the Latin ''controversia'', as a composite of ''controversus'' – "turned in an opposite direction". Legal In the theory of law, a controversy differs from a legal case; while legal cases include all suits, criminal as well as civil, a controversy is a purely civil proceeding. For example, the Case or Controversy Clause of Article Three of the United States Constitution ( Section 2, Clause 1) states that "the judicial Power shall extend ... to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party". This clause has been deemed to impose a requirement that United States federal courts are not permitted to cases that do not pose an actual controversy—that is, an actual dispute between adverse parties which is capable of being resolved by the ourt In addition to setting out the scope of the jurisdiction of the ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Ranked Voting Systems
The term ranked voting (also known as preferential voting or ranked choice voting) refers to any voting system in which voters rank their candidates (or options) in a sequence of first or second (or third, etc.) on their respective ballots. Ranked voting systems differ on the basis of how the ballots are marked, how the preferences are tabulated and counted, how many seats are filled, and whether voters are allowed to rank candidates equally. An electoral system that uses ranked voting uses one of the many available counting methods to select the winning candidate or candidates. There is also variation among ranked voting electoral systems in that in some ranked voting systems, officials require voters to rank a set number of candidates, sometimes all of them; in others, citizens may rank as many candidates as they see fit. Election of single members using ranked votes is often instant-runoff voting. Election of multiple members using ranked votes is usually single transferabl ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Majority Criterion Voteline
A majority, also called a simple majority or absolute majority to distinguish it from related terms, is more than half of the total.Dictionary definitions of ''majority'' aMerriam-Webster Oxford English Dictionary an Cambridge English Dictionary It is a subse ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Majority Judgment
Majority judgment (MJ) is a single-winner voting system proposed in 2007 by Michel Balinski and Rida Laraki. It is a highest median rule, i.e., a cardinal voting system that elects the candidate with the highest median rating. Unlike other voting methods, MJ guarantees that the winner between three or more candidates will be the candidate who had received an absolute majority of the highest grades given by all the voters. Voting process Voters grade as many of the candidates' as they wish with regard to their suitability for office as either Excellent (ideal), Very Good, Good, Acceptable, Poor, or Reject. Multiple candidates may be given the same grade by a voter. The candidate with the highest median grade is the winner. This median-grade can be found as follows: Place all the grades, high to low, top to bottom, in side-by-side columns, the name of each candidate at the top of each of these columns. The median-grade for each candidate is the grade located halfway down eac ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Approval Voting
Approval voting is an electoral system in which voters can select many candidates instead of selecting only one candidate. Description Approval voting ballots show a list of the options of candidates running. Approval voting lets each voter indicate support for one or more candidates. Final tallies show how many votes each candidate received, and the winner is the candidate with the most support. Effect on elections Approval voting advocates Steven Brams and Dudley R. Herschbach predict that approval voting should increase voter participation, prevent minor-party candidates from being spoilers, and reduce negative campaigning. FairVote published a position paper arguing that approval voting has three flaws that undercut it as a method of voting and political vehicle (the group instead advocates for Instant-runoff voting). They argue that it can result in the defeat of a candidate who would win an absolute majority in a plurality election, can allow a candidate to win who ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Condorcet Criterion
An electoral system satisfies the Condorcet winner criterion () if it always chooses the Condorcet winner when one exists. The candidate who wins a majority of the vote in every head-to-head election against each of the other candidatesthat is, a candidate preferred by more voters than any othersis the Condorcet winner, although Condorcet winners do not exist in all cases. It is sometimes simply referred to as the "Condorcet criterion", though it is very different from the "Condorcet loser criterion". Any voting method conforming to the Condorcet winner criterion is known as a Condorcet method. The Condorcet winner is the person who would win a two-candidate election against each of the other candidates in a plurality vote. For a set of candidates, the Condorcet winner is always the same regardless of the voting system in question, and can be discovered by using pairwise counting on voters' ranked preferences. A Condorcet winner will not always exist in a given set of votes, which ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
First-past-the-post
In a first-past-the-post electoral system (FPTP or FPP), formally called single-member plurality voting (SMP) when used in single-member districts or informally choose-one voting in contrast to ranked voting, or score voting, voters cast their vote for a candidate of their choice, and the candidate who receives the most votes wins even if the top candidate gets less than 50%, which can happen when there are more than two popular candidates. As a winner-take-all method, FPTP often produces disproportional results (when electing members of an assembly, such as a parliament) in the sense that political parties do not get representation according to their share of the popular vote. This usually favours the largest party and parties with strong regional support to the detriment of smaller parties without a geographically concentrated base. Supporters of electoral reform are generally highly critical of FPTP because of this and point out other flaws, such as FPTP's vulnerability t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Spoiler Effect
Vote splitting is an electoral effect in which the distribution of votes among multiple similar candidates reduces the chance of winning for any of the similar candidates, and increases the chance of winning for a dissimilar candidate. Vote splitting most easily occurs in plurality voting (also called first-past-the-post) in which each voter indicates a single choice and the candidate with the most votes wins, even if the winner does not have majority support. For example, if candidate A1 receives 30% of the votes, similar candidate A2 receives another 30% of the votes, and dissimilar candidate B receives the remaining 40% of the votes, plurality voting declares candidate B as the winner, even though 60% of the voters prefer either candidate A1 or A2. Under such systems vote pairing (also called vote swapping, co-voting or peer to peer voting) can mitigate the effect, but it requires two voters in different districts to agree, and identifying probabilities of candidates winning ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
