Application of The Majority Criterion: Controversy
The majority criterion was initially defined with respect to voting systems based only on preference order. It is ambiguous how to apply it to systems with absolute rating categories such as Approval, Range, and Majority Judgment.
For approval voting, the difficulty is that the criterion refers to an exclusive preference, and it is unstated whether this preference is actually indicated on the ballot or not. The common simple statement of the criterion, as given in the introduction to this article, does not resolve this, for the word "prefer" can refer to a mental state or to an action; a complete statement of the criterion would either refer to actual marks on the ballot showing the required preference, or it could refer to the mental state of the voters. Since an approval voting ballot, for example, allows a voter to conceal the necessary exclusive preference without voting insincerely, the method cannot determine a majority preference based on what is not shown on the ballot. Thus, if "prefer" means an action, approval voting passes this criterion; if it means a mental state, approval voting does not pass.
For Majority Judgment, the difficulty is different. There are presumed to be enough rating categories to express any salient mental preference. If the word "prefer" is interpreted in a relative sense, as rating the preferred candidate above any other candidate, the method does not pass, even with only two candidates; If the word "prefer" is interpreted in an absolute sense, as rating the preferred candidate with the highest available rating then it does if there are moreover no ties.
Although the criterion's exact definition with respect to Range voting is unclear, the result is not: unstrategic Range voting does not pass this criterion under any definition.
Read more about this topic: Majority Criterion
Famous quotes containing the words application of, application, majority and/or controversy:
“It is known that Whistler when asked how long it took him to paint one of his “nocturnes” answered: “All of my life.” With the same rigor he could have said that all of the centuries that preceded the moment when he painted were necessary. From that correct application of the law of causality it follows that the slightest event presupposes the inconceivable universe and, conversely, that the universe needs even the slightest of events.”
—Jorge Luis Borges (1899–1986)
““Five o’clock tea” is a phrase our “rude forefathers,” even of the last generation, would scarcely have understood, so completely is it a thing of to-day; and yet, so rapid is the March of the Mind, it has already risen into a national institution, and rivals, in its universal application to all ranks and ages, and as a specific for “all the ills that flesh is heir to,” the glorious Magna Charta.”
—Lewis Carroll [Charles Lutwidge Dodgson] (1832–1898)
“The Government of the absolute majority instead of the Government of the people is but the Government of the strongest interests; and when not efficiently checked, it is the most tyrannical and oppressive that can be devised.”
—John Caldwell Calhoun (1782–1850)
“And therefore, as when there is a controversy in an account, the parties must by their own accord, set up for right Reason, the Reason of some Arbitrator, or Judge, to whose sentence, they will both stand, or their controversy must either come to blows, or be undecided, for want of a right Reason constituted by Nature; so is it also in all debates of what kind soever.”
—Thomas Hobbes (1579–1688)