Majority judgment:Why it should be used to rank and elect
- Imprimer
- Partager
- Partager sur Facebook
- Partager sur Twitter
- Partager sur LinkedIn
- Share url
Jeudi 4 Octobre 2018
Every well-known voting system in use today hides important vices that can deny the will of the electorate including majority vote with only two candidates (the domination paradox), approval voting, all methods that ask voters to compare candidates (i.e., rank-order them), and point-summing methods. The underlying reason: the inability of voters to adequately and honestly express their opinions.
Majority judgment asks voters to evaluate every candidate in an easily understood common language of ordinal grades such as: Great, Good, Average, Poor, or Terrible. Majorities determine the electorate’s evaluation of each candidate and the ranking between every pair of candidates (necessarily transitive), with the first-placed among them the winner.
Majority judgment is described together with illustrations of its use (notably, French and U.S. presidential elections).
It was specifically designed to
• permit voters to express their opinions,
• be meaningful in the sense of measurement theory,
• avoid Condorcet’s paradox (guarantee a transitive order-of-finish),
• avoid Arrow’s paradox (when the order-of-finish of two candidates depends on the presence/absence of other candidates),
• combat strategic manipulation and encourage the honest expression of opinions.
Majority judgment has proven itself in practice. It can and should be used in elections with many voters as well as by juries with few judges (e.g., for figure skaters, gymnasts, wines, films, restaurants, prize winners, . . . ).
Some references :
• M. Balinski and R. Laraki. 2011. Majority Judgment: Measuring, Ranking, and Electing, M.I.T. Press.
• – and –. 2013. “Jugement majoritaire versus vote majoritaire (via les présidentielles 2011-2012).” Revue Française d’Economie XXVII 11-44.
• – and –. 2014. “Judge: Don’t Vote! ”, Operations Research 62 483-511.
• – and –. 2016. “Trump and Clinton victorious: proof that US voting system doesn’t work,” TheConversation, May (available on web).
• M. Balinski. 2016. “How majority voting betrayed voters again in 2016,” TheConversation, December (available on web).
• –. 2018. “Réponse à des critiques du jugement majoritaire,” CREST, working paper series #2018-10 (available on web).
Document joint
Date et Lieu
Amphithéâtre du bâtiment IMAG
Organisé par
Nicolas PELTIER
Renaud LACHAIZE
Jérôme DAVID
Intervenant
CNRS (Lamsade, Dauphine) and University of Liverpool (Computer Science)
- Imprimer
- Partager
- Partager sur Facebook
- Partager sur Twitter
- Partager sur LinkedIn
- Share url