|
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] |
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 m ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Gibbard's Theorem
In the fields of mechanism design and social choice theory, Gibbard's theorem is a result proven by philosopher Allan Gibbard in 1973. It states that for any deterministic process of collective decision, at least one of the following three properties must hold: # The process is dictatorial, i.e. there exists a distinguished agent who can impose the outcome; # The process limits the possible outcomes to two options only; # The process is open to strategic voting: once an agent has identified their preferences, it is possible that they have no action at their disposal that best defends these preferences irrespective of the other agents' actions. A corollary of this theorem is Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem about voting rules. The main difference between the two is that Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem is limited to ranked (ordinal) voting rules: a voter's action consists in giving a preference ranking over the available options. Gibbard's theorem is more general and considers processe ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Bucklin Voting
Bucklin voting is a class of voting methods that can be used for single-member and multi-member districts. As in highest median rules like the majority judgment, the Bucklin winner will be one of the candidates with the highest median ranking or rating. It is named after its original promoter, the Georgist politician James W. Bucklin of Grand Junction, Colorado, and is also known as the Grand Junction system. Voting process Bucklin rules varied, but here is a typical example: Voters are allowed rank preference ballots (first, second, third, etc.). First choice votes are first counted. If one candidate has a majority, that candidate wins. Otherwise the second choices are added to the first choices. Again, if a candidate with a majority vote is found, the winner is the candidate with the most votes accumulated. Lower rankings are added as needed. A majority is determined based on the number of valid ballots. Since, after the first round, there may be more votes cast than vo ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Francis Galton
Sir Francis Galton, FRS FRAI (; 16 February 1822 – 17 January 1911), was an English Victorian era polymath: a statistician, sociologist, psychologist, anthropologist, tropical explorer, geographer, inventor, meteorologist, proto- geneticist, psychometrician and a proponent of social Darwinism, eugenics, and scientific racism. He was knighted in 1909. Galton produced over 340 papers and books. He also created the statistical concept of correlation and widely promoted regression toward the mean. He was the first to apply statistical methods to the study of human differences and inheritance of intelligence, and introduced the use of questionnaires and Statistical survey, surveys for collecting data on human communities, which he needed for genealogical and biographical works and for his anthropometrics, anthropometric studies. He was a pioneer of eugenics, coining the term itself in 1883, and also coined the phrase "nature versus nurture". His book ''Hereditary ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Social Choice And Welfare
''Social Choice and Welfare'' is a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal covering social choice and welfare issues. The journal was established in 1984 and is published by Springer Science+Business Media. According to the ''Journal Citation Reports'', the journal has a 2013 impact factor The impact factor (IF) or journal impact factor (JIF) of an academic journal is a scientometric index calculated by Clarivate that reflects the yearly mean number of citations of articles published in the last two years in a given journal, as ... of 0.590. References External links * English-language journals Publications established in 1984 Quarterly journals Social work journals Springer Science+Business Media academic journals {{Social-science-journal-stub ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Usual Judgment
The usual judgment is a single-winner electoral system invented by Adrien Fabre, a French social scientist, in 2019. It is a highest median voting method, a system of cardinal voting in which the winner is decided by the median rather than the mean. Just like the majority judgment, the usual judgment uses verbal appreciations − ''Bad, Inadequate, Passable, Fair, Good, Very Good, Excellent'' − rather than numerical to evaluates the candidates or options. However, the usual judgment uses a more reliable method to break ties between candidates. Presentation The elector gives a verbal appreciation to each candidate among a common scale, such as: An elector can give the same appreciation to several different candidates. A candidate not evaluated automatically receives the mention "Bad". When counting the votes, the appreciations received are added up for each candidate and the share of each appreciation in the votes cast is presented. This is the candidate's "merit profile ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Typical Judgment
Highest median voting rules are cardinal voting rules, where the winning candidate is a candidate with the highest median rating. As these employ ratings, each voter rates the different candidates on an ordered, numerical or verbal scale. The various highest median rules differ in their treatment of ties, i.e., the method of ranking the candidates with the same median rating. Proponents of highest median rules argue that they faithfully reflect the voter's opinion, that they satisfy the independence of irrelevant alternatives and, not being ranked ballots, do not fall within the scope of Arrow's impossibility theorem. Critics point out that highest median rules violate the Condorcet criterion: a candidate can in principle be elected even if all voters but one prefer another candidate. Definition and notation Let \mathcal be the set of candidates, \mathcal V the set of voters, and \mathcal G an ordered finite set of ratings (e.g. the following ratings: "Very good", "Good", "Aver ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Minimax
Minimax (sometimes MinMax, MM or saddle point) is a decision rule used in artificial intelligence, decision theory, game theory, statistics, and philosophy for ''mini''mizing the possible loss for a worst case (''max''imum loss) scenario. When dealing with gains, it is referred to as "maximin" – to maximize the minimum gain. Originally formulated for several-player zero-sum game theory, covering both the cases where players take alternate moves and those where they make simultaneous moves, it has also been extended to more complex games and to general decision-making in the presence of uncertainty. Game theory In general games The maximin value is the highest value that the player can be sure to get without knowing the actions of the other players; equivalently, it is the lowest value the other players can force the player to receive when they know the player's action. Its formal definition is: :\underline = \max_ \min_ Where: * is the index of the player of inte ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Participation Criterion
The participation criterion is a voting system criterion. Voting systems that fail the participation criterion are said to exhibit the no show paradox and allow a particularly unusual strategy of tactical voting: abstaining from an election can help a voter's preferred choice win. The criterion has been defined as follows: * In a deterministic framework, the participation criterion says that the addition of a ballot, where candidate A is strictly preferred to candidate B, to an existing tally of votes should not change the winner from candidate A to candidate B. * In a probabilistic framework, the participation criterion says that the addition of a ballot, where each candidate of the set X is strictly preferred to each other candidate, to an existing tally of votes should not reduce the probability that the winner is chosen from the set X. Plurality voting, approval voting, range voting, and the Borda count all satisfy the participation criterion. All Condorcet methods, Bucklin vo ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Condorcet Loser Criterion
In single-winner voting system theory, the Condorcet loser criterion (CLC) is a measure for differentiating voting systems. It implies the majority loser criterion but does not imply the Condorcet winner criterion. A voting system complying with the Condorcet loser criterion will never allow a ''Condorcet loser'' to win. A Condorcet loser is a candidate who can be defeated in a head-to-head competition against each other candidate.https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.05911 "We say that an alternative is a Condorcet loser if it would be defeated by every other alternative in a kind of one-on-one contest that takes place in a sequential pairwise voting with a fixed agenda4.– Condorcet loser criterion (CLC), ..we say that a social choice procedure satisfies the Condorcet loser criterion (CLC) provided that a Condorcet loser is never among the social choices." (Not all elections will have a Condorcet loser since it is possible for three or more candidates to be mutually defeatable in dif ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Consistency Criterion For Voting Systems
A voting system is consistent if, whenever the electorate is divided (arbitrarily) into several parts and elections in those parts garner the same result, then an election of the entire electorate also garners that result. Smith calls this property separability and Woodall calls it convexity. It has been proven a ranked voting system is "consistent if and only if it is a scoring function", i.e. a positional voting system. Borda count is an example of this. The failure of the consistency criterion can be seen as an example of Simpson's paradox Simpson's paradox is a phenomenon in probability and statistics in which a trend appears in several groups of data but disappears or reverses when the groups are combined. This result is often encountered in social-science and medical-science st .... As shown below under Kemeny-Young, passing or failing the consistency criterion can depend on whether the election selects a single winner or a full ranking of the candidates (sometimes refe ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
