IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-04304795.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Electoral reform: the case for majority judgment

Author

Listed:
  • Rida Laraki

    (LAMSADE - Laboratoire d'analyse et modélisation de systèmes pour l'aide à la décision - Université Paris Dauphine-PSL - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

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, 2022. "Electoral reform: the case for majority judgment," Post-Print hal-04304795, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04304795
    DOI: 10.1007/s10602-022-09385-7
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-04304795
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-04304795/document
    Download Restriction: no
    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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vincent Pons & Clémence Tricaud, 2018. "Expressive Voting and Its Cost: Evidence From Runoffs With Two or Three Candidates," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1621-1649, September.
    2. 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.
    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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Rida Laraki, 2023. "Electoral reform: the case for majority judgment," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 346-356, September.
    4. Michel Balinski & Rida Laraki, 2022. "Majority Judgment vs. Approval Voting," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 70(3), pages 1296-1316, May.
    5. Riako Granzier & Vincent Pons & Clemence Tricaud, 2023. "Coordination and Bandwagon Effects: How Past Rankings Shape the Behavior of Voters and Candidates," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 177-217, October.
    6. Alexandre Volle & Antoine Cazals & Bilal El Rafhi, 2023. "Another Wind of Change? Evidence about Political Outsiders in the French Parliament," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 133(2), pages 203-231.
    7. Costel Andonie & Daniel Diermeier, 2022. "Electoral Institutions with impressionable voters," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(3), pages 683-733, October.
    8. Laurent Bouton & Julia Cagé & Edgard Dewitte & Vincent Pons, 2021. "Small Campaign Donors," Working Papers hal-03878175, HAL.
    9. Clark, Tom S. & Montagnes, B. Pablo & Spenkuch, Jörg L., 2022. "Politics from the Bench? Ideology and Strategic Voting in the U.S. Supreme Court," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    10. Antonin Macé, 2017. "Voting with evaluations: characterizations of evaluative voting and range voting," Working Papers halshs-01222200, HAL.
    11. 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.
    12. Chui Ying Lee & Samuel Lotsu & Moinul Islam & Yuichiro Yoshida & Shinji Kaneko, 2019. "The Impact of an Energy Efficiency Improvement Policy on the Economic Performance of Electricity-Intensive Firms in Ghana," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-21, September.
    13. Caroline Le Pennec & Vincent Pons, 2019. "How Do Campaigns Shape Vote Choice? Multi-Country Evidence from 62 Elections and 56 TV Debates," NBER Working Papers 26572, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Jésus Fernández-Villaverde & Carlos Sanz & Jesús Fernández-Villaverde, 2024. "Classical Right, New Right, and Voting Behavior: Evidence from a Quasi-Natural Experiment," CESifo Working Paper Series 11179, CESifo.
    15. 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.
    16. Dhillon, Amrita & Kotsialou, Grammateia & McBurney, Peter & Riley, Luke, 2019. "Voting over a distributed ledger: An interdisciplinary perspective," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 416, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    17. Erdamar, Bora & Sanver, M. Remzi & Sato, Shin, 2017. "Evaluationwise strategy-proofness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 227-238.
    18. António Osório, 2017. "Judgement and ranking: living with hidden bias," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 253(1), pages 501-518, June.
    19. Igerseim, Herrade & Baujard, Antoinette & Laslier, Jean-François, 2016. "La question du vote. Expérimentations en laboratoire et In Situ," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 92(1-2), pages 151-189, Mars-Juin.
    20. van Gils, Freek & Müller, Wieland & Prüfer, Jens, 2020. "Big Data and Democracy," Other publications TiSEM ecc11d8d-1478-4dd2-b570-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.

    More about this item

    Keywords

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

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hal:journl:hal-04304795. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.