Majority Judgment: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
Dr. Edmonds (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
Line 1:
{{Wikipedia}}
'''Majority Judgment''' is a single-winner [[voting system]] proposed by [[Michel Balinski]] and Rida Laraki. Voters freely [[Score voting|score]] each candidate in one of several named qualities, for instance from "excellent" to "bad". Each quality is associated with a numeric score and the candidate with the highest
==Voting process==
Line 13:
Majority Judgment voting satisfies the [[Majority criterion for rated ballots|majority criterion for rated ballots]], and also a weak form of the [[mutual majority criterion]] (a majority giving only and all of their preferred candidates perfect grades will win), the [[monotonicity criterion]], [[reversal symmetry]], and [[later-no-harm|later-no-help]]. Assuming that ratings are given independently of other candidates, it satisfies the [[independence of clones criterion]] and the [[independence of irrelevant alternatives|independence of irrelevant alternatives criterion]]<ref>Badinski and Laraki, ''Majority Judgment'', p. 217</ref> - although this latter criterion is incompatible with the majority criterion if voters shift their judgments in order to express their [[preferential voting|preferences]] between the available candidates.
It fails the [[Condorcet criterion]],<ref>Strategically in the [[strong Nash equilibrium]], MJ passes the Condorcet criterion.</ref> [[later-no-harm]],<ref>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 184:
==See also==
* [[Voting system]]
== Notes ==
|