IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-00243076.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Election by Majority Judgement: Experimental Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Michel L. Balinski

    (CECO - Laboratoire d'économétrie de l'École polytechnique - X - École polytechnique - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Rida Laraki

    (CECO - Laboratoire d'économétrie de l'École polytechnique - X - École polytechnique - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

The majority judgement is a method of election. It is the consequence of a new theory of social choice where voters judge candidates instead of ranking them. The theory is explained elsewhere [2, 4]. This article describes and analyzes electoral experiments conducted in parallel with the last two French presidential elections to: (1) show that the majority judgement is a practical method, (2) describe it and its salient properties, (3) establish that it escapes the classical paradoxes, (4) illustrate how in practice the well known electoral mechanisms all fail to meet important criteria. The demonstrations introduce new concepts and methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Michel L. Balinski & Rida Laraki, 2007. "Election by Majority Judgement: Experimental Evidence," Working Papers hal-00243076, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-00243076
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-00243076
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-00243076/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michel L. Balinski & Rida Laraki, 2006. "A Theory of Measuring, Electing and Ranking," Working Papers hal-00243040, HAL.
    2. H. Moulin, 1980. "On strategy-proofness and single peakedness," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 437-455, January.
    3. Young, H. P., 1988. "Condorcet's Theory of Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(4), pages 1231-1244, December.
    4. Étienne Farvaque & Hubert Jayet & Lionel Ragot, 2009. "Quel mode de scrutin pour quel « vainqueur » ? Une expérience sur le vote préférentiel transférable," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 119(2), pages 221-246.
    5. Michel L. Balinski & Rida Laraki & Jean-François Laslier & Karine van Der Straeten, 2003. "Le vote par assentiment : une expérience," Working Papers hal-00242959, HAL.
    6. Antoinette Baujard & Herrade Igersheim, 2007. "Expérimentation du vote par note et du vote par approbation lors de l'élection présidentielle française du 22 avril 2007," Post-Print halshs-00337290, HAL.
    7. Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
    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. 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.
    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. Hernández, Penélope & Urbano, Amparo & Vila, José E., 2012. "Pragmatic languages with universal grammars," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 738-752.
    4. 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.
    5. Montes, Ignacio & Rademaker, Michael & Pérez-Fernández, Raúl & De Baets, Bernard, 2020. "A correspondence between voting procedures and stochastic orderings," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 285(3), pages 977-987.
    6. Antony Evans & Vikrant Vaze & Cynthia Barnhart, 2016. "Airline-Driven Performance-Based Air Traffic Management: Game Theoretic Models and Multicriteria Evaluation," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(1), pages 180-203, February.
    7. Osório, António (António Miguel), 2016. "Judgement and Ranking: Living with Hidden Bias," Working Papers 2072/267264, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Michel Balinski & Rida Laraki, 2014. "Judge: Don't Vote !," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 483-511, June.
    11. Tanya Gibbs & Henry W. Chappell, Jr., 2021. "Elections with Multiple Positive and Negative Votes," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 37-47, December.
    12. António Osório, 2017. "Judgement and ranking: living with hidden bias," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 253(1), pages 501-518, June.
    13. Rida Laraki, 2023. "Electoral reform: the case for majority judgment," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 346-356, September.
    14. 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.
    15. Rida Laraki, 2022. "Electoral reform: the case for majority judgment," Post-Print hal-04304795, HAL.

    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, 2014. "Judge: Don't Vote !," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 483-511, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Antoinette Baujard & Herrade Igersheim, 2007. "Expérimentation du vote par note et du vote par approbation lors de l'élection présidentielle française du 22 avril 2007," Post-Print halshs-00337290, HAL.
    4. Fujun Hou, 2024. "A new social welfare function with a number of desirable properties," Papers 2403.16373, arXiv.org.
    5. Herrade Igersheim & Antoinette Baujard & Jean-François Laslier, 2016. "La question du vote. Expérimentations en laboratoire et In Situ," Working Papers halshs-01402275, HAL.
    6. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2024. "The impossibility of non-manipulable probability aggregation," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 24001, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    7. Souvik Roy & Soumyarup Sadhukhan, 2019. "A characterization of random min–max domains and its applications," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(4), pages 887-906, November.
    8. Roy, Souvik & Storcken, Ton, 2019. "A characterization of possibility domains in strategic voting," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 46-55.
    9. Michel Breton & Vera Zaporozhets, 2009. "On the equivalence of coalitional and individual strategy-proofness properties," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(2), pages 287-309, August.
    10. Chatterjee, Swarnendu & Peters, Hans & Storcken, Ton, 2016. "Locating a public good on a sphere," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 46-48.
    11. Barberà, Salvador & Berga, Dolors & Moreno, Bernardo, 2010. "Individual versus group strategy-proofness: When do they coincide?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(5), pages 1648-1674, September.
    12. Ehlers, Lars & Peters, Hans & Storcken, Ton, 2004. "Threshold strategy-proofness: on manipulability in large voting problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 103-116, October.
    13. Shin Sato, 2010. "Circular domains," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 14(3), pages 331-342, September.
    14. Shin Sato, 2012. "On strategy-proof social choice under categorization," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(3), pages 455-471, March.
    15. Alexander Reffgen, 2011. "Generalizing the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem: partial preferences, the degree of manipulation, and multi-valuedness," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(1), pages 39-59, June.
    16. Salvador Barberà & Dolors Berga & Bernardo Moreno, 2020. "Arrow on domain conditions: a fruitful road to travel," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(2), pages 237-258, March.
    17. Teo Chung Piaw & Jay Sethuraman & Rakesh V. Vohra, 2001. "Integer Programming and Arrovian Social Welfare Functions," Discussion Papers 1316, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    18. Chatterji, Shurojit & Zeng, Huaxia, 2018. "On random social choice functions with the tops-only property," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 413-435.
    19. Aziz, Haris & Chan, Hau & Lee, Barton E. & Parkes, David C., 2020. "The capacity constrained facility location problem," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 478-490.
    20. Pycia, Marek & Ünver, M. Utku, 2015. "Decomposing random mechanisms," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 21-33.

    More about this item

    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:wpaper:hal-00243076. 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.