IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/copoec/v34y2023i3d10.1007_s10602-022-09385-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Electoral reform: the case for majority judgment

Author

Listed:
  • Rida Laraki

    (CNRS
    University of Liverpool)

Abstract

The majority judgment (MJ) voting method works well in theory and in practice. Not only does MJ avoid the classical Condorcet and Arrow paradoxes, but it also overcomes the domination paradox, from which paired comparisons by majority rule, approval voting, and all Condorcet consistent methods suffer. This article also shows why MJ best reduces the impact of strategic manipulation and minimizes ties to the extreme. The article illustrates the resistance of MJ to manipulations in a real example, discusses other salient properties of MJ, and summarizes several recent applications that show MJ to be, despite its newness, the right basis of electoral reform.

Suggested Citation

  • Rida Laraki, 2023. "Electoral reform: the case for majority judgment," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 346-356, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:copoec:v:34:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s10602-022-09385-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s10602-022-09385-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10602-022-09385-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10602-022-09385-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michel Balinski & Rida Laraki, 2011. "Election by Majority Judgment: Experimental Evidence," Studies in Public Choice, in: Bernard Dolez & Bernard Grofman & Annie Laurent (ed.), In Situ and Laboratory Experiments on Electoral Law Reform, chapter 0, pages 13-54, Springer.
    2. Michel Balinski & Rida Laraki, 2020. "Majority judgment vs. majority rule," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(2), pages 429-461, March.
    3. Michel Balinski & Rida Laraki, 2011. "Majority Judgment: Measuring, Ranking, and Electing," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262015137, April.
    4. Chang Geun Song, 2023. "What difference does a voting rule make?," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 275-285, September.
    5. Michel Balinski & Rida Laraki, 2020. "Majority judgment vs. majority rule," Post-Print hal-03070420, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. García-Lapresta, José Luis & Marques Pereira, Ricardo Alberto, 2022. "An extension of Majority Judgment to non-uniform qualitative scales," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 301(2), pages 667-674.
    2. Rida Laraki & Estelle Varloot, 2021. "Level-strategyproof Belief Aggregation Mechanisms," Papers 2108.04705, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2022.
    3. Adrien Fabre, 2021. "Tie-breaking the highest median: alternatives to the majority judgment," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(1), pages 101-124, January.
    4. Lachat, Romain & Laslier, Jean-François, 2024. "Alternatives to plurality rule for single-winner elections: When do they make a difference?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    5. Michel Balinski & Rida Laraki, 2020. "Majority judgment vs. majority rule," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(2), pages 429-461, March.
    6. Manzoor Ahmad Zahid & Harrie de Swart, 2015. "Experimental Results about Linguistic Voting," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 9(3), pages 184-201, December.
    7. Justin Kruger & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "An Arrovian impossibility in combining ranking and evaluation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 57(3), pages 535-555, October.
    8. Rida Laraki, 2022. "Electoral reform: the case for majority judgment," Post-Print hal-04304795, HAL.
    9. Aubin, Jean-Baptiste & Gannaz, Irène & Leoni, Samuela & Rolland, Antoine, 2022. "Deepest voting: A new way of electing," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 1-16.
    10. Michel Balinski & Rida Laraki, 2022. "Majority Judgment vs. Approval Voting," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 70(3), pages 1296-1316, May.
    11. Dan S. Felsenthal & Hannu Nurmi, 2016. "Two types of participation failure under nine voting methods in variable electorates," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 115-135, July.
    12. Steven Brams & Richard Potthoff, 2015. "The paradox of grading systems," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 165(3), pages 193-210, December.
    13. Burka, Dávid & Puppe, Clemens & Szepesváry, László & Tasnádi, Attila, 2022. "Voting: A machine learning approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 299(3), pages 1003-1017.
    14. Amani Kahloul & Rim Lahmandi-Ayed & Hejer Lasram & Didier Laussel, 2017. "Democracy and competition: Vertical differentiation and labor in a general equilibrium model," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 19(4), pages 860-874, August.
    15. Stefano Vannucci, 2019. "Majority judgment and strategy-proofness: a characterization," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 48(3), pages 863-886, September.
    16. Ngoie, Ruffin-Benoît M. & Savadogo, Zoïnabo & Ulungu, Berthold E.-L., 2014. "New prospects in social choice theory: median and average as tools for measuring, electing and ranking," MPRA Paper 64155, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 01 Dec 2014.
    17. Antonin Macé, 2017. "Voting with evaluations: characterizations of evaluative voting and range voting," Working Papers halshs-01222200, HAL.
    18. Arnold Cédrick SOH VOUTSA, 2020. "Approval Voting & Majority Judgment in Weighted Representative Democracy," THEMA Working Papers 2020-15, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    19. Marcus Pivato, 2013. "Voting rules as statistical estimators," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(2), pages 581-630, February.
    20. Hernández, Penélope & Urbano, Amparo & Vila, José E., 2012. "Pragmatic languages with universal grammars," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 738-752.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Majority judgment; Arrow paradox; Condorcet paradox; Domination paradox; Resistance to strategy; Range voting; Approval voting; Rank choice voting;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:copoec:v:34:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s10602-022-09385-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.