IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v153y2012i3p269-277.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On choosing the alternative with the best median evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Jean-François Laslier

Abstract

The voting rule proposed by Basset and Persky (Public Choice 99:299–310, 1999 ) picks the alternative with the best median evaluation. This paper shows that this MaxMed principle is equivalent to the MaxMin (so-called Rawls’) principle, with the proviso that one can discard half of the population. In one-dimensional, single-peaked domains, the paper compares the MaxMed rule with majority rule and the utilitarian criterion. The MaxMed outcome is rejected by a majority of voters in favor of outcomes that are also utilitarian improvements. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Suggested Citation

  • Jean-François Laslier, 2012. "On choosing the alternative with the best median evaluation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 153(3), pages 269-277, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:153:y:2012:i:3:p:269-277
    DOI: 10.1007/s11127-011-9792-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11127-011-9792-0
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11127-011-9792-0?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. Marc Fleurbaey & Peter Hammond, 2004. "Interpersonally comparable utility," Post-Print hal-00247066, HAL.
    2. Roemer, John E., 1998. "Why the poor do not expropriate the rich: an old argument in new garb," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 399-424, December.
    3. Bassett, Gilbert W, Jr & Persky, Joseph, 1999. "Robust Voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 99(3-4), pages 299-310, June.
    4. Jean-François Laslier, 2010. "A note on choosing the alternative with the best median evaluation," Working Papers hal-00397403, HAL.
    5. William V. Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley, 2011. "Voting Paradoxes and Group Coherence," Studies in Choice and Welfare, Springer, number 978-3-642-03107-6, June.
    6. Gehrlein, William V & Lepelley, Dominique, 2003. "On Some Limitations of the Median Voting Rule," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 117(1-2), pages 177-190, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ruffin-Benoît M. Ngoie & Selain K. Kasereka & Jean-Aimé B. Sakulu & Kyandoghere Kyamakya, 2024. "Mean-Median Compromise Method: A Novel Deepest Voting Function Balancing Range Voting and Majority Judgment," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-31, November.
    2. Ngoie, Ruffin-Benoît M. & Savadogo, Zoïnabo & Ulungu, Berthold E.-L., 2014. "Median and average as tools for measuring, electing and ranking: new prospects," MPRA Paper 64731, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 01 Sep 2014.
    3. Gaertner, Wulf & Xu, Yongsheng, 2012. "A general scoring rule," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 193-196.
    4. 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.

    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. Jean-François Laslier, 2011. "And the loser is... Plurality Voting," Working Papers hal-00609810, HAL.
    2. Mostapha Diss & Clinton Gubong Gassi & Issofa Moyouwou, 2023. "Social acceptability and the majoritarian compromise rule," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(3), pages 489-510, October.
    3. Cervone, Davide P. & Dai, Ronghua & Gnoutcheff, Daniel & Lanterman, Grant & Mackenzie, Andrew & Morse, Ari & Srivastava, Nikhil & Zwicker, William S., 2012. "Voting with rubber bands, weights, and strings," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 11-27.
    4. Bonifacio Llamazares & Teresa Peña, 2015. "Positional Voting Systems Generated by Cumulative Standings Functions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 777-801, September.
    5. Robert MacCulloch & Silvia Pezzini, 2010. "The Roles of Freedom, Growth, and Religion in the Taste for Revolution," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(2), pages 329-358, May.
    6. Marc Fleurbaey & Stéphane Luchini & Christophe Muller & Erik Schokkaert, 2013. "Equivalent Income And Fair Evaluation Of Health Care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(6), pages 711-729, June.
    7. Carter, Steven & McBride, Michael, 2013. "Experienced utility versus decision utility: Putting the ‘S’ in satisfaction," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 13-23.
    8. Brian Walsh & Stéphane Hallegatte, 2020. "Measuring Natural Risks in the Philippines: Socioeconomic Resilience and Wellbeing Losses," Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 249-293, July.
    9. Kaveh Madani & Laura Read & Laleh Shalikarian, 2014. "Voting Under Uncertainty: A Stochastic Framework for Analyzing Group Decision Making Problems," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(7), pages 1839-1856, May.
    10. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Issofa Moyouwou & Hatem Smaoui, 2021. "Condorcet Efficiency of General Weighted Scoring Rules Under IAC: Indifference and Abstention," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Mostapha Diss & Vincent Merlin (ed.), Evaluating Voting Systems with Probability Models, pages 55-73, Springer.
    11. Reiko Gotoh & Naoki Yoshihara, 2018. "Securing basic well-being for all," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 76(4), pages 422-452, October.
    12. Marc Fleurbaey & Philippe Mongin, 2005. "The news of the death of welfare economics is greatly exaggerated," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 25(2), pages 381-418, December.
    13. Juan Candeal, 2013. "Invariance axioms for preferences: applications to social choice theory," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(3), pages 453-471, September.
    14. Roland Bénabou & Jean Tirole, 2006. "Belief in a Just World and Redistributive Politics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(2), pages 699-746.
    15. Gehrlein, William V. & Moyouwou, Issofa & Lepelley, Dominique, 2013. "The impact of voters’ preference diversity on the probability of some electoral outcomes," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 352-365.
    16. Sylvain Béal & Marc Deschamps & Mostapha Diss & Issofa Moyouwou, 2022. "Inconsistent weighting in weighted voting games," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 191(1), pages 75-103, April.
    17. Jo Thori Lind & Dominic Rohner, 2017. "Knowledge is Power: A Theory of Information, Income and Welfare Spending," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 84(336), pages 611-646, October.
    18. Brandl, Florian & Brandt, Felix, 2024. "A natural adaptive process for collective decision-making," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 19(2), May.
    19. Eric Kamwa, 2019. "On the Likelihood of the Borda Effect: The Overall Probabilities for General Weighted Scoring Rules and Scoring Runoff Rules," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 519-541, June.
    20. David Juarez-Luna, 2016. "Ideology, swing voters, and taxation," EconoQuantum, Revista de Economia y Finanzas, Universidad de Guadalajara, Centro Universitario de Ciencias Economico Administrativas, Departamento de Metodos Cuantitativos y Maestria en Economia., vol. 13(1), pages 7-28, Enero-Jun.

    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:pubcho:v:153:y:2012:i:3:p:269-277. 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.