1 Majority Judgment
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Are Condorcet and Minimax Voting Systems the Best?1
1 Are Condorcet and Minimax Voting Systems the Best?1 Richard B. Darlington Cornell University Abstract For decades, the minimax voting system was well known to experts on voting systems, but was not widely considered to be one of the best systems. But in recent years, two important experts, Nicolaus Tideman and Andrew Myers, have both recognized minimax as one of the best systems. I agree with that. This paper presents my own reasons for preferring minimax. The paper explicitly discusses about 20 systems. Comments invited. [email protected] Copyright Richard B. Darlington May be distributed free for non-commercial purposes Keywords Voting system Condorcet Minimax 1. Many thanks to Nicolaus Tideman, Andrew Myers, Sharon Weinberg, Eduardo Marchena, my wife Betsy Darlington, and my daughter Lois Darlington, all of whom contributed many valuable suggestions. 2 Table of Contents 1. Introduction and summary 3 2. The variety of voting systems 4 3. Some electoral criteria violated by minimax’s competitors 6 Monotonicity 7 Strategic voting 7 Completeness 7 Simplicity 8 Ease of voting 8 Resistance to vote-splitting and spoiling 8 Straddling 8 Condorcet consistency (CC) 8 4. Dismissing eight criteria violated by minimax 9 4.1 The absolute loser, Condorcet loser, and preference inversion criteria 9 4.2 Three anti-manipulation criteria 10 4.3 SCC/IIA 11 4.4 Multiple districts 12 5. Simulation studies on voting systems 13 5.1. Why our computer simulations use spatial models of voter behavior 13 5.2 Four computer simulations 15 5.2.1 Features and purposes of the studies 15 5.2.2 Further description of the studies 16 5.2.3 Results and discussion 18 6. -
Majority Judgment: a New Voting Method
Paradoxes Impossbilities Majority Judgment Theory Applications of MJ Logiciels JM Experimental Evidences Conclusion Majority Judgment: A New Voting Method Rida Laraki CNRS (Lamsade, Dauphine) and University of Liverpool Colloquium J. Morgenstern, INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis December 11, 2018 (Joint work with Michel Balinski) R. Laraki Majority Judgment: A New Voting Method Paradoxes Impossbilities Majority Judgment Theory ApplicationsMethods of MJ Logiciels of Voting JM Paradoxes Experimental in Theory Evidences Paradoxes Conclusion in Practice 1 Paradoxes Methods of Voting Paradoxes in Theory Paradoxes in Practice 2 Impossbilities May’s Axioms for Two Candidates Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem 3 Majority Judgment From Practice Small Jury Large Electorate 4 Theory Domination Paradox Possibility Manipulation 5 Applications of MJ Trump 2016 Gillets Jaunes Délé´gué CM1 6 Logiciels JM 7 Experimental Evidences 8 Conclusion R. Laraki Majority Judgment: A New Voting Method First-past-the-post: also called plurality voting, used in UK, US and Canada to elect members of house of representatives. A voter designate one candidate. The most designated wins. Two-past-the-post: used in France and several countries (Finland, Austria, Russia, Portugal, Ukraine, etc) to elect the president. A voter designates one candidate. If a candidate is designated by a majority, he is elected. Otherwise, there is a run-off between the two first candidates. Paradoxes Impossbilities Majority Judgment Theory ApplicationsMethods of MJ Logiciels of Voting JM Paradoxes Experimental in Theory Evidences Paradoxes Conclusion in Practice Voting methods most used in elections R. Laraki Majority Judgment: A New Voting Method A voter designate one candidate. The most designated wins. Two-past-the-post: used in France and several countries (Finland, Austria, Russia, Portugal, Ukraine, etc) to elect the president. -
Majority Judgment Vs. Majority Rule ∗
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Liverpool Repository Majority Judgment vs. Majority Rule ∗ Michel Balinski CNRS, CREST, Ecole´ Polytechnique, France, [email protected] and Rida Laraki* CNRS, University of Paris Dauphine-PSL, France, [email protected] and University of Liverpool, United Kingdom June 6, 2019 Abstract The validity of majority rule in an election with but two candidates|and so also of Condorcet consistency| is challenged. Axioms based on evaluating candidates|paralleling those of K. O. May characterizing ma- jority rule for two candidates based on comparing candidates|lead to another method, majority judgment, that is unique in agreeing with the majority rule on pairs of \polarized" candidates. It is a practical method that accommodates any number of candidates, avoids both the Condorcet and Arrow paradoxes, and best resists strategic manipulation. Key words: majority, measuring, ranking, electing, Condorcet consistency, domination paradox, tyranny of majority, intensity problem, majority-gauge, strategy-proofness, polarization. 1 Introduction Elections measure. Voters express themselves, a rule amalgamates them, the candidates' scores|measures of support|determine their order of finish, and the winner. Traditional methods ask voters to express themselves by comparing them: • ticking one candidate at most (majority rule, first-past-the-post) or several candidates (approval voting), candidates' total ticks ranking them; • rank-ordering the candidates (Borda rule, alternative vote or preferential voting, Llull's rule, Dasgupta- Maskin method, . ), differently derived numerical scores ranking them. However, no traditional method measures the support of one candidate.1 Instead, the theory of voting (or of social choice) elevates to a basic distinguishing axiom the faith that in an election between two candidates majority rule is the only proper rule. -
Democracy Without Elections Mainz
Democracy without Elections: Is electoral accountability essential for democracy? Felix Gerlsbeck [email protected] Paper prepared for the workshop “Democratic Anxiety. Democratic Resilience.” Mainz, 15-17 June 2017 DRAFT VERSION, PLEASE DO NOT CITE WITHOUT AUTHOR’S PERMISSION 1. Introduction The idea of choosing political decision-makers by sortition, that is, choosing them randomly from a pool of the entire population or from some qualified subset, through some form of lottery or other randomizing procedure, is familiar to democrats at least since ancient Athens. Apart from the selection of trial juries, however, sortition has all but disappeared from official decision-making procedures within contemporary democratic systems, and free, equal, and regular election through voting by the entire qualified population of candidates who put themselves forward for political office, has taken its place. Nevertheless, there has been renewed interest in the idea of reviving sortition-based elements within modern democratic systems over the last years: a number of democratic theorists see great promise in complementing elected decision-making institutions with those selected randomly. These proposals variously go under the names mini-publics, citizen juries, citizen assemblies, lottocracy, enfranchisement lottery, and even Machiavellian Democracy.1 The roots of this practice go back to ancient Athens. During the 5th century Athenian democracy, the equivalent of the parliamentary body tasked with deliberating 1 See for instance, Guerrero 2014; Fishkin 2009; Warren & Gastil 2015; Ryan & Smith 2014; Saunders 2012; López-Guerra 2014; López-Guerra 2011; McCormick 2011. 1 and drafting policy proposals, the boule, was chosen by lot from the citizens of Athens through a complex system of randomization. -
Election by Majority Judgment: Experimental Evidence
Chapter 2 Election by Majority Judgment: Experimental Evidence Michel Balinski and Rida Laraki Introduction Throughout the world, the choice of one from among a set of candidates is accomplished by elections. Elections are mechanisms for amalgamating the wishes of individuals into a decision of society. Many have been proposed and used. Most rely on the idea that voters compare candidates – one is better than another – so have lists of “preferences” in their minds. These include first-past-the-post (in at least two avatars), Condorcet’s method (1785), Borda’s method (1784) (and similar methods that assign scores to places in the lists of preferences and then add them), convolutions of Condorcet’s and/or Borda’s, the single transferable vote (also in at least two versions), and approval voting (in one interpretation). Electoral mechanisms are also used in a host of other circumstances where win- ners and orders-of-finish must be determined by a jury of judges, including figure skaters, divers, gymnasts, pianists, and wines. Invariably, as the great mathemati- cian Laplace (1820) was the first to propose two centuries ago they asked voters (or judges) not to compare but to evaluate the competitors by assigning points from some range, points expressing an absolute measure of the competitors’ mer- its. Laplace suggested the range Œ0; R for some arbitrary positive real number R, whereas practical systems usually fix R at some positive integer. These mechanisms rank the candidates according to the sums or the averages of their points1 (some- times after dropping highest and lowest scores). They have been emulated in various schemes proposed for voting with ranges taken to be integers in Œ0; 100, Œ0; 5, Œ0; 2, or Œ0; 1 (the last approval voting). -
And the Loser Is... Plurality Voting Jean-François Laslier
And the loser is... Plurality Voting Jean-François Laslier To cite this version: Jean-François Laslier. And the loser is... Plurality Voting. 2011. hal-00609810 HAL Id: hal-00609810 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00609810 Preprint submitted on 20 Jul 2011 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE CENTRE NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE AND THE LOSER IS... PLURALITY VOTING Jean-François LASLIER Cahier n° 2011-13 DEPARTEMENT D'ECONOMIE Route de Saclay 91128 PALAISEAU CEDEX (33) 1 69333033 http://www.economie.polytechnique.edu/ mailto:[email protected] And the loser is... Plurality Voting Jean-Franc¸ois Laslier Abstract This paper reports on a vote for choosing the best voting rules that was organized among the participants of the Voting Procedures workshop in July, 2010. Among 18 voting rules, Approval Voting won the contest, and Plurality Voting re- ceived no support at all. 1 Introduction Experts have different opinions as to which is the best voting procedure. The Lever- hulme Trust sponsored 2010 Voting Power in Practice workshop, held at the Chateau du Baffy, Normandy, from 30 July to 2 August 2010, was organized for the purpose of discussing this matter. -
Monde.20010410.Pdf
LE MONDE ÉCONOMIE LE MONDE EMPLOI MARDI 10 AVRIL 2001 EUROPE BOUSSOLE Hanna Gronkiewicz Waltz, ancienne Le PIB turc L’économie 5,9 OFFRES D’EMPLOIS présidente de la Banque nationale 3,9 turque b Trois études se sont efforcées de mesurer l’impact économique b Banques, assurances p. XI de Pologne, demeure d’un établissement d’enseignement supérieur, avec des méthodes b Gestion et administration p. XII et XIII assume l’une asphyxiée d’évaluation très différentes... (page VIII) b Marketing p. XIV des quatre –6,1 par un b Les genèses tortueuses de deux nouvelles b Industrie p. XV vice-présidences 19981999 2000 système écoles d’ingénieurs à Marseille (page IX) b High-tech p. XVI et XVII de la BERD bancaire entaché de fraudes b Pour Henry Mintzberg, professeur de b Carrières internationales p. XIX (page IV) (page V) management, l’importance de la valeur pour b Collectivités territoriales p. XX et XXI l’actionnaire empêche de traiter les clients b Conseil p. XXII comme des êtres humains (page X) La remise à l’ordre du jour de la vaccination Fièvre aphteuse : a en Europe souligne l’absence de contrôle Le coût de la fièvre sanitaire mondial l’addition va être salée epuis que les Etats-Unis « Nos entreprises sont aujourd’hui avait déjà été mise en défaut lors La température monte en France sont malades, nombre globales, mais le monde ne s’est pas de la maladie de la vache folle, d’observateurs se per- doté de systèmes ad hoc. Le marché quand Bruxelles s’était opposé à D dent en conjectures devient complètement incontrô- Paris désireux de maintenir l’em- quant à l’impact du malaise améri- lé… » L’Organisation mondiale de bargo sur la viande de bœuf impor- cain sur l’économie européenne. -
Campagne En Vue Du Premier Tour De L'élection Du Président De La
Campagne en vue du premier tour de l’élection du Président de la République, le 22 avril 2007 Ordre de passage des émissions de la campagne officielle radiotélévisée Ces émissions sont de trois formats, diffusés à des horaires différents. • Émissions de petit format (1 minute) : o Sur France 2, vers 19 h 40, avant le journal de 20 h o Sur France 3, vers 17 h 45, et le samedi 14 avril vers 18 h o Sur France 4, vers minuit du lundi au jeudi, vers 23 h 15 le vendredi et vers 22 h 45 le samedi 14 avril o Sur France 5, vers 17 h 30, immédiatement avant C dans l’air , et vers 17 h 35 le samedi 14 avril o Sur France Inter, vers 14 h 50 o Sur RFO, aux horaires précisés aux articles 44 et 45 de la décision n° 2007-115 du 20 mars 2007 o Sur RFI, le même jour qu’en métropole à 11 h 10 TU (13 h 10 heure de Paris), sauf en Chine, dans la péninsule coréenne et en Asie du Sud-Est, où elles sont diffusées à 15 h 10 TU (17 h 10 heure de Paris). • Émissions de moyen format (2 minutes 30) : o Sur France 2, vers 13 h 45, après la météo o Sur France 3, vers 22 h 45, immédiatement avant Soir 3 o Sur France 4, vers 16 h et le samedi 14 avril vers 15 h 55 o Sur France 5, vers 13 h 10 du lundi au vendredi et vers 13 h le samedi 14 avril o Sur France Inter : vers 20 h 08 o Sur RFO, aux horaires précisés aux articles 44 et 45 de la décision n° 2007-115 du 20 mars 2007 . -
Voting with Rank Dependent Scoring Rules
Voting with Rank Dependent Scoring Rules Judy Goldsmith, Jer´ omeˆ Lang, Nicholas Mattei, and Patrice Perny Abstract Positional scoring rules in voting compute the score of an alternative by summing the scores for the alternative induced by every vote. This summation principle ensures that all votes con- tribute equally to the score of an alternative. We relax this assumption and, instead, aggregate scores by taking into account the rank of a score in the ordered list of scores obtained from the votes. This defines a new family of voting rules, rank-dependent scoring rules (RDSRs), based on ordered weighted average (OWA) operators, which include all scoring rules, and many oth- ers, most of which of new. We study some properties of these rules, and show, empirically, that certain RDSRs are less manipulable than Borda voting, across a variety of statistical cultures and on real world data from skating competitions. 1 Introduction Voting rules aim at aggregating the ordinal preferences of a set of individuals in order to produce a commonly chosen alternative. Many voting rules are defined in the following way: given a vot- ing profile P, a collection of votes, where a vote is a linear ranking over alternatives, each vote contributes to the score of an alternative. The global score of the alternative is then computed by summing up all these contributed (“local”) scores, and finally, the alternative(s) with the highest score win(s). The most common subclass of these scoring rules is that of positional scoring rules: the local score of x with respect to vote v depends only on the rank of x in v, and the global score of x is the sum, over all votes, of its local scores. -
French Greens in the 2012 Presidential and Legislative Elections
PROFILE The French Greens in the 2012 Presidential and Legislative Elections Publication details Environmental Politics, 21/6, November 2012, pp.987-93 doi 10.1080/09644016.2012.724218 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644016.2012.724218 GRAEME HAYES School of Languages and Social Sciences, Aston University, UK Correspondence address: School of Languages and Social Sciences, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK Email: [email protected] The French Greens in the 2012 Presidential and Legislative Elections These are heady times for the French Greens. In the 2009 European elections, Europe Ecologie obtained over 2.8 million votes (16.28%), and gained as many seats (14) as the Parti socialiste (PS); in the 2010 regional elections, Greens gained 12.18% of the first round vote, 263 councillors (up from 159 in 2004), and subsequently entered alliances with the PS in the executives of 21 of metropolitan France’s 22 regional councils. The dissolution of Les Verts in November 2010 into Europe Ecologie-Les Verts (EELV) was completed in a position of strength. In September 2011, the newly recomposed party confirmed this electoral breakthrough, increasing its membership of the Sénat (the upper house of Parliament, traditionally difficult for Greens because of its rural base and indirect mode of election) from four senators to twelve. Against this background, the party’s performance in the 2012 presidential and legislative elections requires explanation. Eva Joly, the EELV presidential candidate, polled the second lowest score by an official Green candidate since Les Verts was formed in 1984, whilst at the legislative elections EELV candidates polled a bare 5.5%. -
Balinski's Majority Judgment
BALINSKI’S MAJORITY JUDGMENT: A GOOD ALTERNATIVE FOR THE NETHERLANDS? Madeleine Michèlle Versteeg Faculty of Philosophy Erasmus University Rotterdam MA Filosofie van een Wetenschapsgebied Maatschappij- en Geesteswetenschappen Prof. Dr. H. de Swart Dr. P. Schuurman 18 ECTS Word count: 22.026 May 2017 1 A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. - Thomas Paine i ABSTRACT Social Choice Theory teaches us that the Majority Rule currently used in most democracies is not the most democratic method at all. In most democracies voters are supposed to vote for one alternative, either a candidate or a party, and the alternative with the most votes or with a majority of the votes is the winner. This method is prone to certain paradoxes and causes a major loss of information: voters may put only one cross before the name of one candidate, but usually have much more elaborate thought about the alternatives that they cannot express. As we shall see, majority voting may not elect the option that is the highest in esteem among the voters. This holds in particular for political elections, and is demonstrated by the very recent US presidential election where Hilary Clinton won the popular vote but was not elected. Alternative voting methods have been developed to solve this problem. Although none of them perfect, Balinski and Laraki’s method of Majority Judgment, based on evaluations instead of individual preferences, seems closest to aggregating individual opinions into a social or common ranking of the alternatives in a satisfactory way. -
Download File
Experimental Democracy – Collective Intelligence for a Diverse and Complex World Felix Gerlsbeck Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2013 © 2013 Felix Gerlsbeck All rights reserved Abstract Experimental Democracy – Collective Intelligence for a Diverse and Complex World Felix Gerlsbeck My dissertation is motivated by the following observation: while we care very much about the outcomes of the democratic process, there is widespread uncertainty about ex ante how to produce them—and quite often there is also disagreement and uncertainty about what they are in the first place. Consequently, unless we have a definite idea what “better decision-making” might be, it is not obvious which institutional reforms or changes in democratic structures would actually promote it. Democracy is a wide concept, and not all institutional constellations and rules and regulations that can be called democratic function equally well. In this dissertation therefore I offer a specific model of democracy— “Experimental Democracy”—that unites the view that the quality of decisions matter, with taking into account the circumstances of uncertainty and disagreement that define political problems. On this account, a desirable political mechanism is one that realizes an experimental method of policy-making directed at solving problems, such that we can expect it to make progress over time, even though we cannot rule out that it will get things wrong—possibly even frequently. I also show how democracy may best realize such an experimental method, and which particular institutional features of democracy could serve this purpose.