[EM] Two mathematicians propose new voting method, Majority Judgment

[Stéphane Rouillon]

Majority Judgment seems some discrete version of median voting, a subject these professors already treated. Obviously, like range voting, it solves Condorcet paradox which is based on preferences. It may have some other problems, linked to their gauge value definition. Is +33 vs -32 really better than +30 vs -1 ?

Envoyé de mon iPhone

> Le 12 mai 2016 à 10:31, Ralph Suter <RLSuter at aol.com> a écrit :
> 
> Two French mathematicians, who say they have spent the last dozen years studying voting systems, have proposed a new method they call Majority Judgment. In a US presidential election, it would ask voters to judge how good or bad a president they believe each candidate would be if elected. There would be 6 options:
> 
> Great President
> Good President
> Average President
> Poor President
> Terrible President
> Never Heard of Candidate
> 
> Their proposal was posted May 9, 2016 at The Conversation and May 11 at Salon.com:
> https://theconversation.com/trump-and-clinton-victorious-proof-that-us-voting-system-doesnt-work-58752
> http://www.salon.com/2016/05/11/two_faces_of_a_rotting_system_partner/
> The authors make the following claim, among others:
> "Majority judgment resolves the conundrum of Arrow’s theorem: neither the Condorcet nor the Arrow paradox can occur.
> I'd appreciate any thoughts about their proposal and about how Majority Judgment compares to other voting methods, particularly Range Voting.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ralph Suter
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20160512/13a6a47f/attachment.htm>