Approval Voting - Compliance With Voting System Criteria

Compliance With Voting System Criteria

Most of the mathematical criteria by which voting systems are compared were formulated for voters with ordinal preferences. In this case, approval voting requires voters to make an additional decision of where to put their approval cutoff (see examples above). Depending on how this decision is made, approval voting satisfies different sets of criteria.

There is no ultimate authority on which criteria should be considered, but the following are some criteria that are accepted and considered to be desirable by many voting theorists:

  • Majority criterion—If there exists a majority that ranks (or rates) a single candidate higher than all other candidates, does that candidate always win?
  • Monotonicity criterion—Is it impossible to cause a winning candidate to lose by ranking him higher, or to cause a losing candidate to win by ranking him lower?
  • Consistency criterion—If the electorate is divided in two and a choice wins in both parts, does it always win overall?
  • Participation criterion—Is voting honestly always better than not voting at all? (This is grouped with the distinct but similar Consistency Criterion in the table below.)
  • Condorcet criterion—If a candidate beats every other candidate in pairwise comparison, does that candidate always win? (This implies the majority criterion, above)
  • Condorcet loser criterion—If a candidate loses to every other candidate in pairwise comparison, does that candidate always lose?
  • Independence of irrelevant alternatives—Is the outcome the same after adding or removing non-winning candidates?
  • Independence of clone candidates—Is the outcome the same if candidates identical to existing candidates are added?
  • Reversal symmetry—If individual preferences of each voter are inverted, does the original winner never win?
Majority Monotone Consistency & Participation Condorcet Condorcet loser IIA Clone independence Reversal symmetry
Inherently dichotomous preferences Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Arbitrary cutoff No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
Strong Nash equilibrium (Perfect information, rational voters, and perfect strategy) Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes

Read more about this topic:  Approval Voting

Famous quotes containing the words compliance with, compliance, voting, system and/or criteria:

    This is the day when people reciprocally offer, and receive, the kindest and the warmest wishes, though, in general, without meaning them on one side, or believing them on the other. They are formed by the head, in compliance with custom, though disavowed by the heart, in consequence of nature.
    Philip Dormer Stanhope, 4th Earl Chesterfield (1694–1773)

    Discipline isn’t just punishing, forcing compliance or stamping out bad behavior. Rather, discipline has to do with teaching proper deportment, caring about others, controlling oneself and putting someone else’s wishes before one’s own when the occasion calls for it.
    Lawrence Balter (20th century)

    It’s not the voting that’s democracy, it’s the counting.
    Tom Stoppard (b. 1937)

    He is not a true man of science who does not bring some sympathy to his studies, and expect to learn something by behavior as well as by application. It is childish to rest in the discovery of mere coincidences, or of partial and extraneous laws. The study of geometry is a petty and idle exercise of the mind, if it is applied to no larger system than the starry one.
    Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)

    The Hacker Ethic: Access to computers—and anything which might teach you something about the way the world works—should be unlimited and total.
    Always yield to the Hands-On Imperative!
    All information should be free.
    Mistrust authority—promote decentralization.
    Hackers should be judged by their hacking, not bogus criteria such as degrees, age, race, or position.
    You can create art and beauty on a computer.
    Computers can change your life for the better.
    Steven Levy, U.S. writer. Hackers, ch. 2, “The Hacker Ethic,” pp. 27-33, Anchor Press, Doubleday (1984)