Majority Judgment: Difference between revisions
Removed multiwinner category as it's not a multiwinner method.
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
(Removed multiwinner category as it's not a multiwinner method.) |
||
(10 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Wikipedia}}
'''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 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 114:
</table>
The median rating for Nashville and
<table>
Line 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:Monotonic electoral systems]]
[[Category:Graded Bucklin methods]]
[[Category:Single-winner voting methods]]
[[Category:Cardinal voting methods]]
|