Majority Judgment: Difference between revisions
Removed multiwinner category as it's not a multiwinner method.
(→Example application: Updated following Wikipeia) |
(Removed multiwinner category as it's not a multiwinner method.) |
||
(16 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Wikipedia}}
'''Majority Judgment''' is a single-winner [[voting system]] proposed by Michel Balinski and Rida Laraki. Voters freely grade each candidate in one of several named ranks, for instance from "excellent" to "bad", and the candidate with the highest [[median]] grade is the winner. If more than one candidate has the same median grade, a tiebreaker is used which sees how "broad" that median grade is. Majority Judgment can be considered as a form of [[Bucklin voting]] which allows equal ranks.▼
▲'''Majority Judgment''' is a single-winner [[voting system]] proposed by [[Michel Balinski]] and Rida Laraki.<ref>{{cite book|author= M. Balinski & R. Laraki|year=2010|title=Majority Judgment. |publisher=MIT Press|isbn=978-0-262-01513-4}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=de Swart|first=Harrie|date=2021-11-16|title=How to Choose a President, Mayor, Chair: Balinski and Laraki Unpacked|url=https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00283-021-10124-3|journal=The Mathematical Intelligencer|language=en|doi=10.1007/s00283-021-10124-3|issn=0343-6993}}</ref> Voters freely
==Voting process==
Line 9 ⟶ 11:
== Satisfied and failed criteria ==
Majority Judgment voting satisfies the [[Majority criterion for rated ballots|majority criterion
It fails the [[Condorcet criterion]],<ref group="nb">Strategically in the [[strong Nash equilibrium]], MJ passes the Condorcet criterion.</ref> [[later-no-harm]],<ref group="nb">MJ provides a weaker guarantee similar to LNH: rating another candidate at or below your preferred winner's median rating (as opposed to your own rating for the winner) cannot harm the winner.</ref> [[
==Example application==
Line 112 ⟶ 114:
</table>
The median rating for Nashville and
<table>
Line 177 ⟶ 179:
</table>
If voters from Knoxville and Chattanooga were to rate Nashville as "Poor" and/or both sets of voters were to rate Chattanooga as "Excellent", in an attempt to make their preferred candidate
==Variants==
Variants of majority judgment have been described. Fabre considers three: the typical judgment, usual judgment, and central judgment.<ref name="Fabre20">{{Cite journal |first=Adrien |last=Fabre |title=Tie-breaking the Highest Median: Alternatives to the Majority Judgment |journal=[[Social Choice and Welfare]] |year=2020 |volume=56 |pages=101–124 |url=https://github.com/bixiou/highest_median/raw/master/Tie-breaking%20Highest%20Median%20-%20Fabre%202019.pdf |doi=10.1007/s00355-020-01269-9|issn=0176-1714}}</ref>. He argues that all of these are less sensitive to noise than the majority judgment, with the usual judgment being the most robust, though the calculation that determines the winner is more complex.
==See also==
* [[Voting system]]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoGH7d51bvc&t=917s Reforming the presidential election! (in French)]
== Notes ==
{{reflist|group=nb}}
{{Reflist}}▼
== References ==
▲{{Reflist}}
[[Category:Non-proportional multi-winner electoral systems]]▼
[[Category:Single winner electoral systems]]▼
[[Category:Monotonic electoral systems]]
[[Category:Graded Bucklin methods]]
[[Category:Cardinal voting methods]]
|