Majority favorite criterion

Last updated

The majority favorite or absolute majority criterion is a voting system criterion. The criterion states that "if only one candidate is ranked first by a majority (more than 50%) of voters, then that candidate must win." [1] [2] It is sometimes referred to simply as the majority criterion, [3] but this term is more often used to refer to Condorcet's majority-rule principle. [4]

Contents

Some methods that comply with this criterion include any Condorcet method, instant-runoff voting, Bucklin voting, plurality voting, and approval voting.

The criterion was originally defined only for methods based on ranked ballots, so while ranked systems such as Borda fail the criterion under any definition, its application to methods which give weight to preference strength is disputed, as is the desirability of satisfying such a criterion (see tyranny of the majority). [5] [6] [7] [8]

The mutual majority criterion is a generalized form of the criterion meant to account for when the majority prefers multiple candidates above all others; voting methods which pass majority but fail mutual majority can encourage all but one of the majority's preferred candidates to drop out in order to ensure one of the majority-preferred candidates wins, creating a spoiler effect. [9] The common choose-one first-past-the-post voting method is notable for this, as major parties vying to be preferred by a majority often attempt to prevent more than one of their candidates from running and splitting the vote by using primaries.

Difference from the Condorcet criterion

By the majority favorite criterion, a candidate C should win if a majority of voters answers affirmatively to the question "Do you (strictly) prefer C to every other candidate?"

The Condorcet criterion gives a stronger and more intuitive notion of majoritarianism (and as such is sometimes called majority rule). According to it, a candidate C should win if for every other candidate Y there is a majority of voters that answers affirmatively to the question "Do you prefer C to Y?" A Condorcet system necessarily satisfies the majority favorite criterion, but not vice versa.

A Condorcet winner C only has to defeat every other candidate "one-on-one"—in other words, when comparing C to any specific alternative. To be the majority choice of the electorate, a candidate C must be able to defeat every other candidate simultaneously—i.e. voters who are asked to choose between C and "anyone else" must pick "C" instead of any other candidate.

Equivalently, a Condorcet winner can have several different majority coalitions supporting them in each one-on-one matchup. A majority winner must instead have a single (consistent) majority that supports them across all one-on-one matchups.

Application to cardinal voting methods

The majority favorite criterion was initially defined with respect to voting systems based only on preference order. In systems with absolute rating categories such as score and highest median methods, it is not clear how the majority favorite criterion should be defined. There are three notable definitions of for a candidate A:

  1. If a majority of voters have (only) A receiving a higher score than any other candidate (even if this is not the highest possible score), this candidate will be elected.
  2. If (only) A receives a perfect score from more than half of all voters, this candidate will be elected.
  3. If a majority of voters prefer (only) A to any other candidate, they can choose to elect candidate A by strategizing.

The first criterion is not satisfied by any common cardinal voting method, but arguably lacks the persuasive force it has when comparing ordinal systems. Ordinal ballots can only tell us whether A is preferred to B (not by how much A is preferred to B), and so if we only know most voters prefer A to B, it is reasonable to say the majority should win. However, with cardinal voting systems, there is more information available, as voters also state the strength of their preferences. Thus cardinal voting systems do not disregard minority voices when making decisions; a sufficiently-motivated minority can sometimes outweigh the voices of a majority, if they would be strongly harmed by a policy or candidate.

Examples

Systems that meet the majority favorite criterion (plurality, Condorcet, and IRV) elect the Red candidate when they receive a majority of the vote. Borda count does not meet the majority favorite criterion and does not select Red. Majority criterion voteline.png
Systems that meet the majority favorite criterion (plurality, Condorcet, and IRV) elect the Red candidate when they receive a majority of the vote. Borda count does not meet the majority favorite criterion and does not select Red.

Approval voting

Approval voting trivially satisfies the majority favorite criterion: if a majority of voters approve of A, but a majority do not approve of any other candidate, then A will have an average approval above 50%, while all other candidates will have an average approval below 50%, and A will be elected.

Plurality voting

Any candidate receiving more than 50% of the vote will be elected by plurality.

Instant runoff

Instant-runoff voting satisfies majority--if a candidate is rated first by 50% of the electorate, they will win in the first round.

Borda count

For example 100 voters cast the following votes:

PreferenceVoters
A>B>C55
B>C>A35
C>B>A10

A has 110 Borda points (55 × 2 + 35 × 0 + 10 × 0). B has 135 Borda points (55 × 1 + 35 × 2 + 10 × 1). C has 55 Borda points (55 × 0 + 35 × 1 + 10 × 2).

PreferencePoints
A110
B135
C55

Candidate A is the first choice of a majority of voters but candidate B wins the election.

Condorcet methods

Any Condorcet method will automatically satisfy the majority favorite criterion, as a majority choice of the electorate is always a Condorcet winner.

Cardinal methods

Score voting

For example 100 voters cast the following votes:

BallotVoters
ABC
109080
010020

Candidate B would win with a total of 80 × 9 + 20 × 10 = 720 + 200 = 920 rating points, versus 800 for candidate A.

Because candidate A is rated higher than candidate B by a (substantial) majority of the voters, but B is declared winner, this voting system fails to satisfy the criterion due to using additional information about the voters' opinion. Conversely, if the bloc of voters who rate A highest know they are in the majority, such as from pre-election polls, they can strategically give a maximal rating to A, a minimal rating to all others, and thereby guarantee the election of their favorite candidate. In this regard, score voting gives a majority the power to elect their favorite, but just as with approval voting, it does not force them to.

STAR voting

STAR voting fails majority, but satisfies the majority loser criterion.

Highest medians

It is controversial how to interpret the term "prefer" in the definition of the criterion. If majority support is interpreted in a relative sense, with a majority rating a preferred candidate above any other, 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.

Criterion 1

If "A is preferred" means that the voter gives a better grade to A than to every other candidate, majority judgment can fail catastrophically. Consider the case below when n is large:

Ballots (Bolded medians)
# ballotsA's scoreB's score
n100/10052/100
150/10051/100
n49/1000/100

A is preferred by a majority, but B's median is Good and A's median is only Fair, so B would win. In fact, A can be preferred by up to (but not including) 100% of all voters, an exceptionally severe violation of the criterion.

Criterion 2

If we define the majority favorite criterion as requiring a voter to uniquely top-rate candidate A, then this system passes the criterion; any candidate who receives the highest grade from a majority of voters receives the highest grade (and so can only be defeated by another candidate who has majority support).

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Approval voting</span> Single-winner electoral system

Approval voting is an electoral system in which voters can select any number of candidates instead of selecting only one.

Score voting, sometimes called range voting, is an electoral system for single-seat elections. Voters give each candidate a numerical score, and the candidate with the highest average score is elected. Score voting includes the well-known approval voting, but also lets voters give partial (in-between) approval ratings to candidates.

In social choice theory and politics, the spoiler effect refers to a situation where the entry of a losing candidate affects the results of an election. A voting system that is not affected by spoilers satisfies independence of irrelevant alternatives or independence of spoilers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Condorcet method</span> Pairwise-comparison electoral system

A Condorcet method is an election method that elects the candidate who wins a majority of the vote in every head-to-head election against each of the other candidates, whenever there is such a candidate. A candidate with this property, the pairwise champion or beats-all winner, is formally called the Condorcet winner. The head-to-head elections need not be done separately; a voter's choice within any given pair can be determined from the ranking.

The Copeland or Llull method is a ranked-choice voting system based on counting each candidate's pairwise wins and losses.

In an election, a candidate is called a Condorcet, beats-all, or majority winner if a majority of voters would support them in a race against any other candidate. Such a candidate is also called an undefeated or tournament champion. Voting systems in which a majority-rule winner will always win the election are said to satisfy the majority-rule principle, also called the Condorcet criterion. Methods that satisfy this criterion extend majority rule to elections with more than one candidate.

The Smith criterion is a voting system criterion that formalizes the concept of a majority rule. A voting system satisfies the Smith criterion if it always elects a candidate from the Smith set, which generalizes the idea of a "Condorcet winner" to cases where there may be cycles or ties, by allowing for several who together can be thought of as being "Condorcet winners." A Smith method will always elect a candidate from the Smith set.

The participation criterion, also called vote or population monotonicity, is a voting system criterion that says that a candidate should never lose an election as a result of receiving too many votes in support. It says that adding a voter who prefers Alice to Bob should not cause Alice to lose the election to Bob.

In political science and social choice theory, the median voter theorem states that if voters and candidates are distributed along a one-dimensional spectrum and voters have single peaked preferences, any voting method satisfying the Condorcet criterion will elect the candidate preferred by the median voter.

The mutual majority criterion is a criterion for evaluating electoral system. It requires that whenever a majority of voters prefer a group of candidates above all others, someone from that group must win. It is the single-winner case of Droop-Proportionality for Solid Coalitions.

The Borda count electoral system can be combined with an instant-runoff procedure to create hybrid election methods that are called Nanson method and Baldwin method. Both methods are designed to satisfy the Condorcet criterion, and allow for incomplete ballots and equal rankings.

In single-winner voting system theory, the Condorcet loser criterion (CLC) is a measure for differentiating voting systems. It implies the majority loser criterion but does not imply the Condorcet winner criterion.

Reversal symmetry is a voting system criterion which requires that if candidate A is the unique winner, and each voter's individual preferences are inverted, then A must not be elected. Methods that satisfy reversal symmetry include Borda count, ranked pairs, Kemeny–Young method, and Schulze method. Methods that fail include Bucklin voting, instant-runoff voting and Condorcet methods that fail the Condorcet loser criterion such as Minimax.

Later-no-harm is a property of some ranked-choice voting systems, first described by Douglas Woodall. In later-no-harm systems, increasing the rating or rank of a candidate ranked below the winner of an election cannot cause this higher-ranked candidate to lose.

In voting systems theory, the independence of clones criterion measures an election method's robustness to strategic nomination. Nicolaus Tideman was the first to formulate this criterion, which states that the winner must not change due to the addition of a non-winning candidate who is similar to a candidate already present. It is a relative criterion: it states how changing an election should or shouldn't affect the outcome.

The Borda count is a family of positional voting rules which gives each candidate, for each ballot, a number of points corresponding to the number of candidates ranked lower. In the original variant, the lowest-ranked candidate gets 0 points, the next-lowest gets 1 point, etc., and the highest-ranked candidate gets n − 1 points, where n is the number of candidates. Once all votes have been counted, the option or candidate with the most points is the winner. The Borda count is intended to elect broadly acceptable options or candidates, rather than those preferred by a majority, and so is often described as a consensus-based voting system rather than a majoritarian one.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ranked voting</span> Family of electoral systems

The term ranked voting, also known as preferential voting or ranked-choice voting, pertains to any voting system where voters indicate a rank to order candidates or options—in a sequence from first, second, third, and onwards—on their ballots. Ranked voting systems vary based on the ballot marking process, how preferences are tabulated and counted, the number of seats available for election, and whether voters are allowed to rank candidates equally.

The later-no-help criterion is a voting system criterion formulated by Douglas Woodall. The criterion is satisfied if, in any election, a voter giving an additional ranking or positive rating to a less-preferred candidate can not cause a more-preferred candidate to win. Voting systems that fail the later-no-help criterion are vulnerable to the tactical voting strategy called mischief voting, which can deny victory to a sincere Condorcet winner.

A major branch of social choice theory is devoted to the comparison of electoral systems, otherwise known as social choice functions. Viewed from the perspective of political science, electoral systems are rules for conducting elections and determining winners from the ballots cast. From the perspective of economics, mathematics, and philosophy, a social choice function is a mathematical function that determines how a society should make choices, given a collection of individual preferences.

Multiwinner, at-large, or committeevoting refers to electoral systems that elect several candidates at once. Such methods can be used to elect parliaments or committees.

References

  1. Pennock, Ronald; Chapman, John W. (1977). Due Process: Nomos XVIII. NYU Press. p. 266. ISBN   9780814765692. if there is some single alternative which is ranked first by a majority of voters, we shall say there exists a majority will in favor of that alternative, according to the absolute majority (AM) criterion.
  2. "Single-winner Voting Method Comparison Chart". Archived from the original on 2011-02-28. Majority Favorite Criterion: If a majority (more than 50%) of voters prefer candidate A to all other candidates, then A should win.
  3. Rothe, Jörg (2015-08-18). Economics and Computation: An Introduction to Algorithmic Game Theory, Computational Social Choice, and Fair Division. Springer. p. 231. ISBN   9783662479049. A voting system satisfies the majority criterion if a candidate who is placed on top in more than half of the votes always is a winner of the election.
  4. Fishburn, Peter C. (November 1977). "Condorcet Social Choice Functions". SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics. 33 (3): 469–489. doi:10.1137/0133030. ISSN   0036-1399.
  5. Beatty, Harry (1973). "Voting Rules and Coordination Problems". The Methodological Unity of Science. Theory and Decision Library. Springer, Dordrecht. pp. 155–189. doi:10.1007/978-94-010-2667-3_9. ISBN   9789027704047. This is true even if the members of the majority are relatively indifferent among a, b and c while the members of the minority have an intense preference for b over a. So the objection can be made that plurality or majority voting allows a diffident majority to have its way against an intense minority.
  6. "Utilitarian vs. Majoritarian Election Methods - The Center for Election Science". sites.google.com. Retrieved 2017-01-07.
  7. Hillinger, Claude (2006-05-15). "The Case for Utilitarian Voting". Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. SSRN   878008.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  8. Lippman, David. "Voting Theory" (PDF). Math in Society. Borda count is sometimes described as a consensus-based voting system, since it can sometimes choose a more broadly acceptable option over the one with majority support.
  9. Kondratev, Aleksei Y.; Nesterov, Alexander S. (2020). "Measuring Majority Power and Veto Power of Voting Rules". Public Choice. 183 (1–2): 187–210. arXiv: 1811.06739 . doi:10.1007/s11127-019-00697-1. S2CID   53670198.
  10. Yee, Ka-Ping (2010-03-13). "Election Methods in Pictures". zesty.ca. Retrieved 2016-12-03.