We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
Majority judgment vs. majority rule.
- Authors
Balinski, Michel; Laraki, Rida
- 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 majority 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.
- Subjects
ZENO'S paradoxes; JUDGMENT (Psychology); MAJORITIES
- Publication
Social Choice & Welfare, 2020, Vol 54, Issue 2/3, p429
- ISSN
0176-1714
- Publication type
Article
- DOI
10.1007/s00355-019-01200-x