Voting system criterion: Difference between revisions
→Essential criteria
(Sorting to top of Category:Voting system criteria category, and adding this category to Category:Voter strategy) |
|||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Wikipedia|Voting criteria}}
{{Wikipedia|Comparison of electoral systems}}
{{Wikipedia|Electoral system criterion}}
{{Wikipedia|Category:Electoral system criteria}}
A "[[voting system criterion]]" (or "'''electoral system criterion'''") is formally defined pass/fail criterion by which a [[voting system]] may be assessed.
== Criterion failure rates ==
Line 18:
== Relative importance of various criteria ==
A few criteria follow with an intuitive rationale for each. See the articles for their exact definition.
=== Essential criteria ===
Some criteria are very widely agreed to be important. Examples:
*
* [[Pareto]]: If everybody prefers X to Y, then the method's ranking should also prefer X to Y.
* Anonymity/Fairness: All candidates and voters should be treated identically.
=== Desirable criteria ===
Other criteria are also widely regarded as good, but there is disagreement over how important it is for a voting method to pass these (they are agreed to be desirable, but not necessarily essential):
* [[Independence of irrelevant alternatives]]: Removing a candidate who didn't win shouldn't change who wins.
* [[Monotonicity]]: Doing something clearly beneficial to a candidate's support shouldn't make that candidate lose.
* [[Summability criterion]]: All the data the method uses to call the election should be expressible as a short summary.
* [[Clone independence]]: Replacing a candidate with multiple near-identical candidates shouldn't change who wins.
Sometimes desirable properties or criteria are called desiderata.
There is disagreement over how important the various other criteria are. Some criteria are even considered bad by some; for instance, [[Michael Dummett]], in a letter to Robert Newland, regarded the combination of [[later-no-harm]] and [[later-no-help]] as "quite unreasonable".<ref name="Woodall 1994 Properties">{{cite journal | last=Woodall |first=D. |title=Properties of preferential election rules | journal=Voting matters | issue=3 | pages=8–15 | year=1994 | url=http://www.votingmatters.org.uk/ISSUE3/P5.HTM}}</ref>
== Examples ==
Line 47 ⟶ 49:
Here are some criteria often touted by advocates of [[majority rule]], split into categories of "widely agreed on" and criteria which are more polarizing:
[[Majority criterion]], [[Mutual majority criterion]], [[Majority loser criterion]], [[Droop proportionality criterion]], [[Condorcet criterion]], [[Smith criterion]], [[Condorcet loser]]
=== Proportionality-related criteria ===
[[Proportionality for Solid Coalitions]], [[Justified representation]], [[Perfect representation]], [[Stable Winner Set]], [[Quota rule]]
=== Strategic voting-related criteria ===
Line 73 ⟶ 71:
These generally are considered essential and basic features of any voting method
[[Discrimination axiom]], [[Homogeneity criterion]], [[Scale invariance]], [[Anonymity criterion]], [[Neutrality criterion]]
=== Miscellaneous criteria ===
[[Immunity from
== Types of criteria ==
=== Absolute criterion ===
An ''absolute criterion'' requires or prohibits some result due to some characteristic of a given a set of ballots. This is in contrast to the below-mentioned [[relative criterion]], which requires (or prohibits) a change in the election's result given some modification to the ballots.
Line 92 ⟶ 89:
'''Examples of relative criteria:'''
*[[Monotonicity criterion]], [[Participation criterion]], [[Later-no-harm criterion]], [[Later-no-help criterion]], [[Sincere Favorite criterion]], [[Independence of irrelevant alternatives]], [[Strategic nomination|Independence of clones]], [[Neutrality of Spoiled Ballots]], [[Reversal symmetry]]
== Other systems ==
=== Proportional Representation ===
[[Proportional representation]] is the general idea that groups of voters with shared preferences should be able to win an amount of representation in a multi-winner body (a legislature) proportional to how large they are. In partisan PR methods, proportionality can be measured using various measures of how well a party's seats matched up to its share of votes. For nonpartisan methods, there is disagreement on how to measure or quantify PR.
=== Rated ballot adaptations ===
Several criteria have rated-ballot or other adaptations that may make more sense in certain contexts. For example, the [[majority criterion]] says that a candidate preferred by a majority over all other candidates must win. The [[Majority criterion for rated ballots]] further requires the majority to give this candidate the highest score. It can be argued that a voter who gives their favorite candidate less than full support (i.e. didn't do [[normalization]]) doesn't deserve full power, so this modification to the criterion ensures that only a strategic or strongly supportive majority gets their way. Similar adaptations can be made to any criterion involving voter preferences determining who should win, such as [[PSC]], the [[plurality criterion]], [[
== References ==
[[Category:Voting system criteria|*]]
[[Category:Voter strategy]]
<references />{{fromwikipedia}}
| |||