Majority Judgment Theory and Paradoxical Results
نویسنده
چکیده
The majority judgment theory is developed by Michel Balinski and Rida Laraki for social choice [2, 3]. In this paper we will show that majority judgment theory does not always yield a majority choice, is winner and rank inconsistent and the median based majority judgment may yield paradoxical results.
منابع مشابه
Collective Decision-Making without Paradoxes: An Argument-Based Account
The combination of individual judgments on logically interconnected propositions into a collective decision on the same propositions is called judgment aggregation. Literature in social choice and political theory has claimed that judgment aggregation raises serious concerns. For example, consider a set of premises and a conclusion in which the latter is logically equivalent to the former. When...
متن کاملComparison of Affective Theory of Mind, Moral Judgment, Working Memory, and Cognitive Flexibility in Individuals with Substance Use and Normal Individuals
Objective: The present study was conducted to compare the affective theory of mind, moral judgment, working memory, and cognitive flexibility in individuals with substance use and normal individuals. Method: The method of the present study was causal-comparative. The statistical population of the study included all men who referred to addiction treatment centers in Tabriz in 2019 as well as nor...
متن کاملA geometric approach to judgement aggregation
The problem of judgement aggregation consists in aggregating individual judgments on an agenda of logically interconnected propositions into a collective set of judgments on these propositions. This relatively new literature (see List and Puppe (2007) for a survey) is centred on problems like the discursive dilemma which are structurally similar to paradoxes and problems in social choice theory...
متن کاملCollective Decision-Making without Paradoxes: A Fusion Approach
The combination of individual judgments on logically interconnected propositions into a collective decision on the same propositions is called judgment aggregation. Literature in social choice and political theory has claimed that judgment aggregation raises serious concerns. For example, consider a set of premises and a conclusion in which the latter is logically equivalent to the former. When...
متن کاملBelief merging and the discursive dilemma: an argument-based account to paradoxes of judgment aggregation
The aggregation of individual judgments on logically interconnected propositions into a collective decision on the same propositions is called judgment aggregation. Literature in social choice and political theory has claimed that judgment aggregation raises serious concerns. For example, consider a set of premises and a conclusion where the latter is logically equivalent to the former. When ma...
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 2009