The Case for Utilitarian Voting
نویسنده
چکیده
Utilitarian voting (UV) is defined in this paper as any voting rule that allows the voter to rank all of the alternatives by means of the scores permitted under a given voting scale. Specific UV rules that have been proposed are approval voting, allowing the scores 0, 1; range voting, allowing all numbers in an interval as scores; evaluative voting, allowing the scores -1, 0, 1. The paper deals extensively with Arrow’s impossibility theorem that has been interpreted as precluding a satisfactory voting mechanism. I challenge the relevance of the ordinal framework in which that theorem is expressed and argue that instead utilitarian, i.e. cardinal social choice theory is relevant for voting. I show that justifications of both utilitarian social choice and of majority rule can be modified to derive UV. The most elementary derivation of UV is based on the view that no justification exists for restricting voters’ freedom to rank the alternatives on a given scale. JEL Classification: D71, D72 May 2005
منابع مشابه
Claude Hillinger: The Case for Utilitarian Voting
Utilitarian voting (UV) is defined in this paper as any voting rule that allows the voter to rank all of the alternatives by means of the scores permitted under a given voting scale. Specific UV rules that have been proposed are approval voting, allowing the scores 0, 1; range voting, allowing all numbers in an interval as scores; evaluative voting, allowing the scores -1, 0, 1. The paper deals...
متن کاملFully Proportional Representation as Resource Allocation: Approximability Results
We study the complexity of (approximate) winner determination underMonroe’s and ChamberlinCourant’s multiwinner voting rules, where we focus on the total (dis)satisfaction of the voters (the utilitarian case) or the (dis)satisfaction of the worstoff voter (the egalitarian case). We show good approximation algorithms for the satisfaction-based utilitarian cases, and inapproximability results for...
متن کاملClaude Hillinger: Utilitarian Collective Choice and Voting
In his seminal Social Choice and Individual Values, Kenneth Arrow stated that his theory applies to voting. Many voting theorists have been convinced that, on account of Arrow’s theorem, all voting methods must be seriously flawed. Arrow’s theory is strictly ordinal, the cardinal aggregation of preferences being explicitly rejected. In this paper I point out that all voting methods are cardinal...
متن کاملMajority Rule and Utilitarian Welfare∗
We study the welfare properties of majority and supermajority rules when voting is voluntary and costly. Voters in the model have private values with differing preference intensities and voting costs. Our model is non-parametric– with only weak assumptions on the distribution of the number of eligible voters, preferences and costs. We show that, in large elections, majority rule is utilitarian ...
متن کاملA farewell to IIA
Arrow’s Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA) has been under criticism for decades for not taking account of preference intensities. Computer-simulation results by Aki Lehtinen concerning strategic voting under various voting rules show that this intensity argument does not need to rest on mere intuition. Voters may express intensities by voting strategically, and that this has bene...c...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2005