Utilitarian winner: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (Created page with "In an election, the '''utilitarian winner''' ('''UW''') is the candidate who would maximize the utility of the voters if they won. Cardinal voting systems are based on th...") |
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In an election, the '''utilitarian winner''' ('''UW''') is the candidate who would maximize the utility of the voters if they won. |
In an election, the '''utilitarian winner''' ('''UW''') is the candidate who would maximize the utility of the voters (the utilitarian welfare function) if they won.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/653/|title=The Case for Utilitarian Voting|last=Hillinger|first=Claude|date=May 2005|website=epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de|access-date=2019-02-09|quote=The theory of this paper suggests that the best outcome is the candidate who would win a utilitarian vote (utilitarian winner), the worst is the candidate getting the worst score in a utilitarian vote (utilitarian loser).}}</ref> |
||
[[Cardinal voting systems]] are based on the concept of maximizing cardinal utility, having voters express their estimated utility by scoring the candidates. |
[[Cardinal voting systems]] are based on the concept of maximizing cardinal utility, having voters express their estimated utility by scoring the candidates. |
||
In most cases, the utilitarian winner and the [[Condorcet winner]] (CW) are the same, though it's possible for them to be different |
In most cases, the utilitarian winner and the [[Condorcet winner]] (CW) are the same, though it's possible for them to be different.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Pivato|first=Marcus|date=2015-08-01|title=Condorcet meets Bentham|url=https://thema.u-cergy.fr/IMG/documents/2014-17.pdf|journal=Journal of Mathematical Economics|volume=59|pages=58–65|doi=10.1016/j.jmateco.2015.04.006|issn=0304-4068|via=|quote=We show that if the statistical distribution of utility functions in a population satisfies a certain condition, then a Condorcet winner will not only exist, but will also maximize the utilitarian social welfare function.}}</ref> |
||
Advocates of cardinal systems consider the UW to be a better outcome than the Condorcet or a majoritarian winner.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://sites.google.com/a/electology.org/www/utilitarian-majoritarian#TOC-Why-utilitarianism-is-actually-preferable-to-majoritarianism|title=Utilitarian vs. Majoritarian Election Methods|website=The Center for Election Science|access-date=2019-02-09}}</ref> |
|||
== See also == |
== See also == |
||
Revision as of 21:42, 9 February 2019
In an election, the utilitarian winner (UW) is the candidate who would maximize the utility of the voters (the utilitarian welfare function) if they won.[1]
Cardinal voting systems are based on the concept of maximizing cardinal utility, having voters express their estimated utility by scoring the candidates.
In most cases, the utilitarian winner and the Condorcet winner (CW) are the same, though it's possible for them to be different.[2]
Advocates of cardinal systems consider the UW to be a better outcome than the Condorcet or a majoritarian winner.[3]
See also
References
- ↑ Hillinger, Claude (May 2005). "The Case for Utilitarian Voting". epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de. Retrieved 2019-02-09.
The theory of this paper suggests that the best outcome is the candidate who would win a utilitarian vote (utilitarian winner), the worst is the candidate getting the worst score in a utilitarian vote (utilitarian loser).
- ↑ Pivato, Marcus (2015-08-01). "Condorcet meets Bentham" (PDF). Journal of Mathematical Economics. 59: 58–65. doi:10.1016/j.jmateco.2015.04.006. ISSN 0304-4068.
We show that if the statistical distribution of utility functions in a population satisfies a certain condition, then a Condorcet winner will not only exist, but will also maximize the utilitarian social welfare function.
- ↑ "Utilitarian vs. Majoritarian Election Methods". The Center for Election Science. Retrieved 2019-02-09.