Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBalinski, Michel
dc.contributor.authorLaraki, Rida
dc.date.accessioned2019-09-25T10:39:49Z
dc.date.available2019-09-25T10:39:49Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.urihttps://basepub.dauphine.fr/handle/123456789/19918
dc.descriptionLe PDF est une version non publiée datant de 2018.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectMajority judgmenten
dc.subjectmajority ruleen
dc.subjectapproval votingen
dc.subjectCondorcet consistencyen
dc.subjectdomination paradoxen
dc.subjectno-show paradoxen
dc.subjectno-show syndromeen
dc.subject.ddc003en
dc.titleMajority Judgment vs Approval Votingen
dc.typeArticle accepté pour publication ou publié
dc.description.abstractenMajority judgment (MJ) and approval voting (AV) are compared in theory and practice. Criticisms of MJ and claims that AV is superior are refuted. The two primary criticisms have been that MJ is not "Condorcet-consistent" and that it admits the "no-show" paradox. That MJ is not Condorcet-consistent is a good property shared with AV: the domination paradox shows majority rule may well err in an election between two. Whereas the no-show paradox is in theory possible with MJ it is as a practical matter impossible. For those who believe this extremely rare phenomenon is important it is proven that MJ with three grades cannot admit the no-show paradox. In contrast; AV suffers from serious drawbacks because voters can only "tick" or "approve" candidates at best only Approve or Disapprove each candidate. With AV voters cannot express their opinions adequately; experiments show that Approve is not the opposite of Disapprove; and although AV does not admit the no-show paradox it admits the very closely allied "no-show syndrome and insensitivity." Two is too few. Substantive debate must concern three or more grades.en
dc.relation.isversionofjnlnameOperations Research
dc.relation.isversionofjnldate2019
dc.subject.ddclabelRecherche opérationnelleen
dc.relation.forthcomingouien
dc.relation.forthcomingprintnonen
dc.description.ssrncandidatenonen
dc.description.halcandidatenonen
dc.description.readershiprechercheen
dc.description.audienceInternationalen
dc.relation.Isversionofjnlpeerreviewednonen
dc.relation.Isversionofjnlpeerreviewednonen
dc.date.updated2019-09-25T10:35:12Z
hal.person.labIds2579
hal.person.labIds989


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record