Mutual majority criterion: Difference between revisions

(Show that DAC also fails independence of mutual majority-dominated alternatives; link the counterexample to the more general Left, Center, Right scenario.)
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{wikipedia}}
The '''Mutualmutual majority criterion''' is a criterion for evaluating [[voting system]]s. Most simply, it can be thought of as requiring that whenever a [[majority]] of voters prefer a set of candidates (often candidates from the same political party) above all others (i.e. when choosing among ice cream flavors, a majority of voters are split between several variants of chocolate ice cream, but agree that any of the chocolate-type flavors are better than any of the other ice cream flavors), someone from that set must win (i.e. one of the chocolate-type flavors must win). It is the single-winner case of Droop-[[Proportionality for Solid Coalitions]].
 
It is an extension of (and also implies) the [[Majority criterion|majority criterion]] for sets of candidates. Thus, it is often called the '''Majority criterion for [[Solid coalition|solid coalitions]].'''
Line 17 ⟶ 18:
 
; Systems which pass
:[[Baldwin's method|Borda-Elimination]], [[Bucklin voting|Bucklin]], [[Coombs]], [[IRV]], [[Kemeny-Young]], [[Nanson's (original)method]], [[Raynaud|Pairwise-Elimination]], [[Ranked Pairs]], [[Schulze method|Schulze]], [[Smith//Minimax|Smith//Minmax]], [[Descending Solid Coalitions]], [[Majority Choice Approval]], any [[:Category:Smith-efficient Condorcet methods|Smith-efficient Condorcet method]], most [[:Category:Condorcet-IRV hybrid methods|Condorcet-IRV hybrid methods]]
; Systems which fail
: most [[Cardinal voting|rated methods]] (such as [[Approval voting]], [[Score|Score voting]], and [[STAR|STAR voting]]), [[Black]], [[Borda]], [[Dodgson]], [[Minmax]], [[Sum of Defeats]]
Line 59 ⟶ 60:
Voting methods which pass the majority criterion but not the mutual majority criterion (some ranked methods fall under this category, notably [[FPTP]]) possess a spoiler effect, since if all but one candidate in the mutual majority drops out, the remaining candidate in the mutual majority is guaranteed to win, whereas if nobody had dropped out, a candidate not in the mutual majority might have won. This is also why [[:Category:Sequential loser-elimination methods|Sequential loser-elimination methods]] whose base methods pass the majority criterion pass the mutual majority criterion.
 
All [[Condorcet methods]] pass mutual majority when there is a [[Condorcet winner]], since if there is a mutual majority set, all candidates in it pairwise beat all candidates not in it by virtue of being preferred by an absolute majority; since the CW isn't pairwise beaten by anyone, they must be in the set. [[Smith-efficient]] [[Condorcet methods]] always pass mutual majority.
 
In contrast to the [[dominant mutual third]] set, a mutual majority set is always also a dominant mutual majority set. Every coalition that has majority support also pairwise beats the rest of the candidates, but that is not true of all coalitions supported by more than 1/3 of the voters.
 
=== Dominant mutual plurality criterion ===
Line 134 ⟶ 137:
 
[[Category:Voting system criteria]]
[[Category:Majority-relatedMajority–minority conceptsrelations]]