Show simple item record

Majority Judgment: Measuring Ranking and Electing

hal.structure.identifier
dc.contributor.authorBalinski, Michel*
hal.structure.identifierLaboratoire d'analyse et modélisation de systèmes pour l'aide à la décision [LAMSADE]
dc.contributor.authorLaraki, Rida
HAL ID: 179670
ORCID: 0000-0002-4898-2424		*
dc.date.accessioned2017-06-06T13:22:35Z
dc.date.available2017-06-06T13:22:35Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.identifier.isbn978-0-262-01513-4
dc.identifier.urihttps://basepub.dauphine.fr/handle/123456789/16563
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectSocial Choice
dc.subjectVoting Systems
dc.subjectPolitical Science
dc.subjectGame Theory
dc.subject.ddc519en
dc.subject.classificationjelC.C7.C72en
dc.subject.classificationjelD.D7.D71en
dc.titleMajority Judgment: Measuring Ranking and Electing
dc.typeOuvrage
dc.contributor.editoruniversityotherCNRS
dc.description.abstractenIn Majority Judgment, Michel Balinski and Rida Laraki argue that the traditional theory of social choice offers no acceptable solution to the problems of how to elect, to judge, or to rank. They find that the traditional model—transforming the "preference lists" of individuals into a "preference list" of society—is fundamentally flawed in both theory and practice. Balinski and Laraki propose a more realistic model. It leads to an entirely new theory and method--majority judgment—proven superior to all known methods. It is at once meaningful, resists strategic manipulation, elicits honesty, and is not subject to the classical paradoxes encountered in practice, notably Condorcet's and Arrow's. They offer theoretical, practical, and experimental evidence—from national elections to figure skating competitions—to support their arguments. Drawing on insights from wine, sports, music, and other competitions, Balinski and Laraki argue that the question should not be how to transform many individual rankings into a single collective ranking, but rather, after defining a common language of grades to measure merit, how to transform the many individual evaluations of each competitor into a single collective evaluation of all competitors. The crux of the matter is a new model in which the traditional paradigm—to compare—is replaced by a new paradigm—to evaluate.
dc.publisher.cityCambridge, Massachusetts ; London, Englanden
dc.identifier.citationpages414
dc.contributor.countryeditoruniversityotherFRANCE
dc.subject.ddclabelProbabilités et mathématiques appliquéesen
dc.relation.forthcomingnonen
dc.description.ssrncandidatenon
dc.description.halcandidateoui
dc.description.readershiprecherche
dc.description.audienceInternational
dc.date.updated2019-09-24T11:07:24Z
hal.identifierhal-01533476*
hal.version1*
hal.update.actionupdateFiles*
hal.update.actionupdateMetadata*
hal.author.functionaut
hal.author.functionaut


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record