|
Evaluative Voting
Rated, evaluative, graded, or cardinal voting rules are a class of voting methods that allow voters to state how strongly they support a candidate, by giving each one a grade on a separate scale. The distribution of ratings for each candidate—i.e. the percentage of voters who assign them a particular score—is called their merit profile. For example, if candidates are graded on a 4-point scale, one candidate's merit profile may be 25% on every possible rating (1, 2, 3, and 4), while a perfect candidate would have a merit profile where 100% of voters assign them a score of 4. Since rated methods allow the voters to express how strongly they support a candidate, these methods are not covered by Arrow's impossibility theorem, and their resistance to the spoiler effect becomes a more complex matter. Some rated methods are immune to the spoiler effect when every voter rates the candidates on an absolute scale, but they are not when the voters' rating scales change based on the ca ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Condorcet Paradox
In social choice theory, Condorcet's voting paradox is a fundamental discovery by the Marquis de Condorcet that majority rule is inherently self-contradictory. The result implies that it is logically impossible for any voting system to guarantee that a winner will have support from a majority of voters; for example, there can be rock-paper-scissors scenarios where a majority of voters will prefer A to B, B to C, and also C to A, even if every voter's individual preferences are rational and avoid self-contradiction. Examples of Condorcet's paradox are called Condorcet cycles or cyclic ties. In such a cycle, every possible choice is rejected by the electorate in favor of another alternative, who is preferred by more than half of all voters. Thus, any attempt to ground social decision-making in majoritarianism must accept such self-contradictions (commonly called spoiler effects). Systems that attempt to do so, while minimizing the rate of such self-contradictions, are called Condo ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Ranked Voting
Ranked voting is any voting system that uses voters' Ordinal utility, rankings of candidates to choose a single winner or multiple winners. More formally, a ranked vote system depends only on voters' total order, order of preference of the candidates. Ranked voting systems vary dramatically in how preferences are tabulated and counted, which gives them Comparison of voting rules, very different properties. In instant-runoff voting (IRV) and the single transferable vote system (STV), lower preferences are used as contingencies (back-up preferences) and are only applied when all higher-ranked preferences on a ballot have been eliminated or when the vote has been cast for a candidate who has been elected and surplus votes need to be transferred. Ranked votes of this type do not suffer the problem that a marked lower preference may be used against a voter's higher marked preference. Some ranked vote systems use ranks as weights; these systems are called positional voting. In the B ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
First-past-the-post
First-past-the-post (FPTP)—also called choose-one, first-preference plurality (FPP), or simply plurality—is a single-winner voting rule. Voters mark one candidate as their favorite, or First-preference votes, first-preference, and the candidate with more first-preference votes than any other candidate (a Plurality (voting), ''plurality'') is elected, even if they do not have more than half of votes (a ''majority''). FPP has been used to elect part of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, British House of Commons since the Middle Ages before spreading throughout the British Empire. Throughout the 20th century, many countries that previously used FPP have abandoned it in favor of other electoral systems, including the former British colonies of Australia and New Zealand. FPP is still De jure, officially used in the majority of U.S. state, US states for most elections. However, the combination of Partisan primary, partisan primaries and a two-party system in these jurisd ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Cumulative Voting
Cumulative voting (sometimes called the single divisible vote) is an election system where a voter casts multiple votes but can lump votes on a specific candidate or can split their votes across multiple candidates. The candidates elected are those receiving the largest number of votes cast in the election, up to the number of representatives to be elected. Cumulative voting can simplify strategic voting, by allowing larger groups of voters to elect multiple representatives by splitting their vote between multiple candidates. This removes the complexity associated with randomized or coordinated strategies. It may be thought of as a variant of block voting. Under both cumulative voting and block voting, a voter casts multiple votes but in the case of cumulative voting, can lump them all on one candidate (the equivalent of engaging in plumping). When voters do this, the result is similar to SNTV. When supporters of a minority candidate do this, they may be of sufficient stren ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Range Voting
Score voting, sometimes called range voting, is an electoral system for single-seat elections. Voters give each candidate a numerical score, and the candidate with the highest average score is elected. Score voting includes the well-known approval voting (used to calculate approval ratings), but also lets voters give partial (in-between) approval ratings to candidates. Usage Political use Historical A crude form of score voting was used in some elections in ancient Sparta, by measuring how loudly the crowd shouted for different candidates. This has a modern-day analog of using clapometers in some television shows and the judging processes of some athletic competitions. Beginning in the 13th century, the Republic of Venice elected the Doge of Venice using a multi-stage process with multiple rounds of score voting. This may have contributed to the Republic's longevity, being partly responsible for its status as the longest-lived democracy in world history. Score voting w ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Gibbard's Theorem
In the fields of mechanism design and social choice theory, Gibbard's theorem is a result proven by philosopher Allan Gibbard in 1973. It states that for any deterministic process of collective decision, at least one of the following three properties must hold: # The process is Dictatorship mechanism, dictatorial, i.e. there is a single voter whose vote chooses the outcome. # The process limits the possible outcomes to two options only. # The process is not straightforward; the optimal ballot for a voter "requires strategic voting", i.e. it depends on their beliefs about other voters' ballots. A corollary of this theorem is the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem about voting rules. The key difference between the two theorems is that Gibbard–Satterthwaite applies only to ranked voting. Because of its broader scope, Gibbard's theorem makes no claim about whether voters need to reverse their ranking of candidates, only that their optimal ballots depend on the other voters' ballots. Gib ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Smith Set
The Smith set, sometimes called the top-cycle or Condorcet winning set, generalizes the idea of a Condorcet winner to cases where no such winner exists. It does so by allowing cycles of candidates to be treated jointly, as if they were a single Condorcet winner. Voting systems that always elect a candidate from the Smith set pass the Smith criterion. The Smith set and Smith criterion are both named for mathematician John H. Smith. The Smith set provides one standard of optimal choice for an election outcome. An alternative, stricter criterion is given by the Landau set. Definition The Smith set is formally defined as the smallest set such that every candidate inside the set ''S'' pairwise defeats every candidate outside ''S''. Alternatively, it can be defined as the set of all candidates with a (non-strict) beatpath to any candidate who defeats them. A set of candidates each of whose members pairwise defeats every candidate outside the set is known as a ''dominating set'' ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Condorcet Winner Criterion
A Condorcet winner (, ) is a candidate who would receive the support of more than half of the electorate in a one-on-one race against any one of their opponents. Voting systems where a majority winner will always win are said to satisfy the Condorcet winner criterion. The Condorcet winner criterion extends the principle of majority rule to elections with multiple candidates. Named after Nicolas de Condorcet, it is also called a majority winner, a majority-preferred candidate, a beats-all winner, or tournament winner (by analogy with round-robin tournaments). A Condorcet winner may not necessarily always exist in a given electorate: it is possible to have a rock, paper, scissors-style cycle, when multiple candidates defeat each other (Rock < Paper < Scissors < Rock). This is called , and is analogous to the counterintuitive [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Likert Scale
A Likert scale ( ,) is a psychometric scale named after its inventor, American social psychologist Rensis Likert, which is commonly used in research questionnaires. It is the most widely used approach to scaling responses in survey research, such that the term (or more fully the Likert-type scale) is often used interchangeably with '' rating scale'', although there are other types of rating scales. Likert distinguished between a scale proper, which emerges from collective responses to a set of items (usually eight or more), and the format in which responses are scored along a range. Technically speaking, a Likert scale refers only to the former. The difference between these two concepts has to do with the distinction Likert made between the underlying phenomenon being investigated and the means of capturing variation that points to the underlying phenomenon. When responding to a Likert item, respondents specify their level of agreement or disagreement on a symmetric agree-disa ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Rating Scale
A rating scale is a set of categories designed to obtain information about a quantitative property, quantitative or a Qualitative data, qualitative attribute. In the social sciences, particularly psychology, common examples are the Likert scale, Likert response scale and 0-10 rating scales, where a person selects the number that reflecting the perceived quality of a Product (business), product. Background A rating scale is a method that requires the rater to assign a value, sometimes numeric, to the rated object, as a measure of some rated attribute. Types of rating scales All rating scales can be classified into one of these types: # Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) # Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) # Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) # Likert # Graphical rating scale # Descriptive graphic rating scale Some data are measured at the Level of measurement#Ordinal scale, ordinal level. Numbers indicate the relative position of items, but not the magnitude of difference. Attitude and opinion scales a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Method Of Equal Shares
The method of equal shares is a proportional method of counting ballots that applies to participatory budgeting, to committee elections, and to simultaneous public decisions. It can be used when the voters vote via approval ballots, ranked ballots or cardinal ballots. It works by dividing the available budget into equal parts that are assigned to each voter. The method is only allowed to use the budget share of a voter to implement projects that the voter voted for. It then repeatedly finds projects that can be afforded using the budget shares of the supporting voters. In contexts other than participatory budgeting, the method works by equally dividing an abstract budget of "voting power". In 2023, the method of equal shares was being used in a participatory budgeting program in the Polish city of Wieliczka. The program, known as Green Million (''Zielony Milion''), was set to distribute 1 million złoty to ecological projects proposed by residents of the city. It was also used ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
