1049:
973:
981:
931:
66:
906:
1801:"Modern economic theory has insisted on the ordinal concept of utility; that is, only orderings can be observed, and therefore no measurement of utility independent of these orderings has any significance. In the field of consumer's demand theory the ordinalist position turned out to create no problems; cardinal utility had no explanatory power above and beyond ordinal. Leibniz' Principle of the
918:
1933:
Many value researchers have assumed that rankings of values are more valid than ratings of values because rankings force participants to differentiate more incisively between similarly regarded values ... Results indicated that ratings tended to evidence greater validity than rankings within moderate
1261:
Others, however, argue that ratings are fundamentally invalid, because meaningful interpersonal comparisons of utility are impossible. This was Arrow's original justification for only considering ranked systems, but later in life he reversed his opinion, stating that he is "a little inclined to think
1533:
Simplified forms of score voting automatically give skipped candidates the lowest possible score for the ballot they were skipped. Other forms have those ballots not affect the candidate's rating at all. Those forms not affecting the candidates rating frequently make use of quotas. Quotas demand a
1964:
the test-retest reliabilities of the ranking items were slightly higher than were those of the rating items, but construct validities were lower. Because validity is the most important consideration ... the findings of the present research support the use of the rating format in assessing health
1894:
The extremely high degree of correspondence found between ranking and rating averages ... does not leave any doubt about the preferability of the rating method for group description purposes. The obvious advantage of rating is that while its results are virtually identical to what is obtained by
1789:
Many voting theorists have resisted asking for more than a ranking, with economics-based reasoning: utilities are not comparable between people. ... But no economist would bat an eye at asking one of the A voters above whether they'd prefer a coin flip between A and B winning or C winning
1040:. For example, if candidates are graded on a 4-point scale, one candidate's merit profile may be 25% on every possible rating (1, 2, 3, and 4), while a perfect candidate would have a merit profile where 100% of voters assign them a score of 4.
1759:
And as I said, that in effect implies more information. ... I'm a little inclined to think that score systems where you categorize in maybe three or four classes probably (in spite of what I said about manipulation) is probably the
1403:
A key feature of evaluative voting is a form of independence: the voter can evaluate all the candidates in turn ... another feature of evaluative voting ... is that voters can express some degree of preference.
1755:
you mention that your theorem applies to preferential systems or ranking systems. ... But the system that you're just referring to, Approval Voting, falls within a class called cardinal systems. ...
1576:
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 â1, 0, 1.
1856:
the scale-of-values method can be used for approximately the same purposes as the order-of-merit method, but that the scale-of-values method is a better means of obtaining a record of judgments
1136:
is a hybrid of ranked and rated voting systems. It chooses the top 2 candidates by score voting, who then advance to a runoff round (where the candidate is elected by a simple plurality).
1292:
The weighted mean utility theorem gives the optimal strategy for cardinal voting under most circumstances, which is to give the maximum score for all options with an above-average
1907:
Maio, Gregory R.; Roese, Neal J.; Seligman, Clive; Katz, Albert (1 June 1996). "Rankings, Ratings, and the
Measurement of Values: Evidence for the Superior Validity of Ratings".
959:
1965:
values. ... added benefit of item independence, which allows for greater flexibility in statistical analyses. ... also easier than ranking items for respondents to complete.
650:
1811:
Racnchetti, Fabio (2002), "Choice without utility? Some reflections on the loose foundations of standard consumer theory", in
Bianchi, Marina (ed.),
682:
544:
539:
952:
645:
327:
1946:
Johnson, Marilyn F.; Sallis, James F.; Hovell, Melbourne F. (1 September 1999). "Comparison of Rated and Ranked Health and
Lifestyle Values".
851:
102:
1991:
1732:
945:
1309:
846:
1333:
1247:
836:
586:
557:
497:
1013:
which allow voters to state how strongly they support a candidate, which involves giving each one a grade on a separate scale.
568:
93:
1441:
631:
1463:
is a measure of preferences on a scale of cardinal numbers, such as the scale from zero to one or the scale from one to ten.
2011:
2006:
1345:
273:
258:
243:
1153:
889:
509:
432:
353:
321:
303:
144:
1588:
Hillinger, Claude (1 October 2004). "On the
Possibility of Democracy and Rational Collective Choice". Rochester, NY.
1370:
Baujard, Antoinette; Gavrel, Frédéric; Igersheim, Herrade; Laslier, Jean-François; Lebon, Isabelle (September 2017).
874:
1996:
1802:
1277:
1148:
1127:
1098:
765:
748:
715:
695:
479:
467:
437:
238:
196:
129:
1434:
Liberalism against populism : a confrontation between the theory of democracy and the theory of social choice
1273:
scale, for instance) are more valid and convey more information than ordinal rankings in measuring human opinion.
573:
621:
614:
98:
1180:
Ratings ballots can be converted to ranked/preferential ballots, assuming equal ranks are allowed. For example:
1169:
1141:
1080:
1048:
1036:
of ratings for each candidateâi.e. the percentage of voters who assign them a particular scoreâis called their
1033:
675:
603:
592:
455:
442:
425:
402:
380:
343:
333:
1413:
1411:
1934:
and low-differentiating participants. In addition, the validity of ratings was greater than rankings overall.
1056:
There are several voting systems that allow independent ratings of each candidate, which allow them to avoid
801:
655:
338:
1868:
Moore, Michael (1 July 1975). "Rating versus ranking in the
Rokeach Value Survey: An Israeli comparison".
1164:
830:
710:
640:
447:
1604:
1120:
is unusual in that it is a cardinal voting system that does not allow independent scoring of candidates.
1090:
738:
578:
462:
268:
247:
179:
157:
930:
796:
1805:
demanded then the excision of cardinal utility from our thought patterns." Arrow (1967), as quoted on
1534:
minimum proportion of voters rate that candidate in some way before that candidate is eligible to win.
1341:
1159:
869:
856:
824:
88:
1598:
I favor 'evaluative voting' under which a voter can vote for or against any alternative, or abstain.
1371:
2001:
1700:
775:
609:
262:
935:
806:
417:
201:
30:"Cardinal voting" redirects here. For the voting system used by Cardinals to elect the pope, see
1057:
884:
1669:
Vasiljev, Sergei (2008). "Cardinal Voting: The Way to Escape the Social Choice
Impossibility".
1476:
1077:(AV) is the simplest method, and allows only the two grades (0, 1): "approved" or "unapproved".
1924:
1885:
1847:
1682:
1648:
1589:
1498:
1447:
1437:
1394:
1123:
841:
811:
733:
670:
504:
231:
206:
189:
57:
1806:
1593:
1955:
1916:
1877:
1839:
1674:
1640:
1560:
1488:
1386:
1327:
1117:
1061:
1018:
1010:
922:
879:
770:
758:
472:
348:
174:
168:
150:
139:
134:
122:
83:
45:
1740:
1617:
1297:
1074:
1026:
1014:
910:
743:
598:
563:
484:
395:
298:
221:
163:
41:
1657:
under CAV he has three optionsâcast one vote in favor, abstain, or cast one vote against.
65:
1293:
1255:
1022:
780:
720:
705:
516:
385:
360:
211:
31:
905:
1985:
1459:
is a measure of preferences in terms of rank ordersâthat is, first, second, etc. ...
1418:
1321:
1305:
1251:
789:
489:
277:
115:
78:
53:
1631:
Felsenthal, Dan S. (January 1989). "On combining approval with disapproval voting".
1815:, Routledge Frontiers of Political Economy, vol. 20, Routledge, pp. 21â45
1390:
1270:
1266:
1110:
1093:
is a common example, and allows for either 5 grades or 10 (if half-stars are used).
1068:
529:
293:
216:
1105:
grade wins. The various highest median rules differ in their tie-breaking methods.
1920:
1140:
In addition, there are many different proportional cardinal rules, often called
1133:
407:
365:
308:
253:
1493:
1772:
1071:
systems, where the candidate with the highest average (or total) rating wins.
980:
1928:
1889:
1851:
1827:
1686:
1652:
1502:
1451:
1398:
17:
1881:
1281:
375:
370:
1828:"A Comparison of the Scale of Values Method with the Order-of-Merit Method"
1564:
1644:
972:
917:
1678:
1052:
A majority judgment ballot is based on grades like those used in schools.
626:
1959:
1126:
is a technically-cardinal voting system that, in practice, behaves like
1552:
1477:"How to Choose a President, Mayor, Chair: Balinski and Laraki Unpacked"
1304:
ranking of candidates on the ballot (a property that is impossible for
1301:
412:
1516:
1843:
1300:. As a result, strategic voting with score voting often results in a
1102:
1086:
Range voting refers to a variant with a continuous scale from 0 to 1.
1419:"Ordinal Versus Cardinal Voting Rules: A Mechanism Design Approach"
1047:
984:
An approval voting ballot does not require ranking or exclusivity.
979:
971:
1717:
But Arrow only intended his criteria to apply to ranking systems.
1280:, usually by combining cardinal voting with a first stage (as in
1083:(CAV) uses 3 grades (â1, 0, +1): "against", "abstain", or "for."
976:
On a rated ballot, the voter may rate each choice independently.
1813:
The Active
Consumer: Novelty and Surprise in Consumer Choice
64:
1976:
Approval Voting, Steven J. Brams, Peter C. Fishburn, 1983
1895:
ranking, it supplies more information than ranking does.
1336:, a theorem on the limitations of ranked-choice voting
1826:
Conklin, E. S.; Sutherland, J. W. (1 February 1923).
27:
Electoral systems with independent candidate ratings
1182:
1029:) are the two categories of modern voting systems.
1372:"How voters use grade scales in evaluative voting"
1265:Psychological research has shown that cardinal
1330:, the degenerate case of ranked-choice voting
953:
8:
1727:
1725:
1246:Cardinal voting methods are not subject to
1109:However, not all rated voting methods are
960:
946:
36:
1701:"How I Came to Care About Voting Systems"
1492:
1357:
1101:, where the candidate with the highest
52:
1613:
1602:
1870:European Journal of Social Psychology
1546:
1544:
1542:
1379:European Journal of Political Economy
7:
1365:
1363:
1361:
1324:, the other class of voting methods
1948:American Journal of Health Behavior
1909:Basic and Applied Social Psychology
1832:Journal of Experimental Psychology
1733:"Interview with Dr. Kenneth Arrow"
1134:STAR (score then automatic runoff)
25:
1553:"The Case for Utilitarian Voting"
1432:Riker, William Harrison. (1982).
1276:Cardinal methods can satisfy the
1739:. 6 October 2012. Archived from
1551:Hillinger, Claude (1 May 2005).
929:
916:
904:
852:McKelveyâSchofield chaos theorem
498:Semi-proportional representation
130:First preference plurality (FPP)
1777:The Center for Election Science
1737:The Center for Election Science
1705:The Center for Election Science
1521:The Center for Election Science
1475:de Swart, Harrie (2022-06-01).
1436:. Waveland Pr. pp. 29â30.
1091:five-star classification system
1481:The Mathematical Intelligencer
1391:10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2017.09.006
890:Harsanyi's utilitarian theorem
847:Moulin's impossibility theorem
812:Conflicting majorities paradox
1:
1346:Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem
1334:Arrow's impossibility theorem
1310:GibbardâSatterthwaite theorem
1254:methods cannot eliminate the
1248:Arrow's impossibility theorem
716:Frustrated majorities paradox
1154:Proportional approval voting
885:Condorcet dominance theorems
825:Social and collective choice
32:Papal conclave § voting
1921:10.1207/s15324834basp1802_4
551:By mechanism of combination
322:Proportional representation
2028:
1992:Cardinal electoral systems
1803:identity of indiscernibles
1494:10.1007/s00283-021-10124-3
1348:applicable to rated voting
1344:, a generalization of the
1278:Condorcet winner criterion
1262:that probably the best".
1128:first-past-the-post voting
749:Multiple districts paradox
480:Fractional approval voting
468:Interactive representation
29:
1296:, which is equivalent to
696:Paradoxes and pathologies
545:Mixed-member proportional
540:Mixed-member majoritarian
535:By results of combination
426:Approval-based committees
1176:Relationship to rankings
1170:Expanding approvals rule
1142:approval-based committee
1081:Combined approval voting
875:Condorcet's jury theorem
676:Double simultaneous vote
651:Ruralâurban proportional
646:Dual-member proportional
608:
597:
564:Parallel (superposition)
456:Fractional social choice
443:Expanding approvals rule
272:
257:
242:
173:
162:
138:
1882:10.1002/ejsp.2420050313
1671:SSRN Electronic Journal
802:Tyranny of the majority
579:Fusion (majority bonus)
396:Quota-remainder methods
1612:Cite journal requires
1165:Method of equal shares
1053:
985:
977:
936:Mathematics portal
842:Majority impossibility
831:Impossibility theorems
627:Negative vote transfer
448:Method of equal shares
69:
1645:10.1002/bs.3830340105
1051:
983:
975:
739:Best-is-worst paradox
728:Pathological response
463:Direct representation
116:Single-winner methods
68:
2012:Social choice theory
2007:Public choice theory
1679:10.2139/ssrn.1116545
1565:10.5282/ubm/epub.653
1306:ranked-choice voting
1252:ranked-choice voting
1250:, which proves that
1160:Fair majority voting
1099:Highest median rules
923:Economics portal
870:Median voter theorem
89:Comparative politics
1960:10.5993/AJHB.23.5.5
1269:(on a numerical or
911:Politics portal
622:Vote linkage system
593:Seat linkage system
180:Ranked-choice (RCV)
1773:"Why Not Ranking?"
1707:. 21 December 2011
1633:Behavioral Science
1054:
1025:methods (based on
1017:methods (based on
986:
978:
807:Discursive dilemma
766:Lesser evil voting
641:Supermixed systems
344:Largest remainders
202:Round-robin voting
70:
1997:Electoral systems
1342:Gibbard's theorem
1239:
1238:
1191:Preference order
1188:Rating (0 to 99)
1156:(Thiele's method)
1149:Phragmen's method
1124:Cumulative voting
970:
969:
857:Gibbard's theorem
797:Dominance paradox
734:Perverse response
438:Phragmen's method
304:Majority judgment
232:Positional voting
190:Condorcet methods
58:electoral systems
16:(Redirected from
2019:
1977:
1974:
1968:
1967:
1943:
1937:
1936:
1904:
1898:
1897:
1865:
1859:
1858:
1844:10.1037/h0074763
1823:
1817:
1816:
1799:
1793:
1792:
1786:
1784:
1769:
1763:
1762:
1749:
1748:
1729:
1720:
1719:
1714:
1712:
1697:
1691:
1690:
1666:
1660:
1659:
1628:
1622:
1621:
1615:
1610:
1608:
1600:
1585:
1579:
1578:
1573:
1571:
1548:
1537:
1536:
1530:
1528:
1513:
1507:
1506:
1496:
1472:
1466:
1465:
1461:Cardinal utility
1429:
1423:
1422:
1415:
1406:
1405:
1376:
1367:
1328:Plurality voting
1294:expected utility
1288:Strategic voting
1183:
1118:Quadratic voting
1062:spoilerproofness
1019:cardinal utility
962:
955:
948:
934:
933:
921:
920:
909:
908:
864:Positive results
759:Strategic voting
656:Majority jackpot
613:
602:
473:Liquid democracy
349:National remnant
339:Highest averages
276:
261:
246:
178:
169:Alternative vote
167:
151:Partisan primary
143:
84:Mechanism design
37:
21:
2027:
2026:
2022:
2021:
2020:
2018:
2017:
2016:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1975:
1971:
1945:
1944:
1940:
1906:
1905:
1901:
1867:
1866:
1862:
1825:
1824:
1820:
1810:
1800:
1796:
1782:
1780:
1771:
1770:
1766:
1746:
1744:
1731:
1730:
1723:
1710:
1708:
1699:
1698:
1694:
1673:. Elsevier BV.
1668:
1667:
1663:
1630:
1629:
1625:
1611:
1601:
1587:
1586:
1582:
1569:
1567:
1557:Open Access LMU
1550:
1549:
1540:
1526:
1524:
1515:
1514:
1510:
1474:
1473:
1469:
1457:Ordinal utility
1444:
1431:
1430:
1426:
1417:
1416:
1409:
1374:
1369:
1368:
1359:
1355:
1318:
1298:approval voting
1290:
1244:
1178:
1075:Approval voting
1064:. For example:
1058:Arrow's theorem
1046:
1027:ordinal utility
1009:are a class of
966:
928:
927:
915:
903:
895:
894:
861:
837:Arrow's theorem
827:
817:
816:
785:
755:
744:No-show paradox
725:
711:Cloning paradox
701:Spoiler effects
698:
688:
687:
662:
549:
532:
522:
521:
494:
485:Maximal lottery
452:
433:Thiele's method
422:
392:
324:
314:
313:
299:Approval voting
287:Cardinal voting
283:
228:
222:Maximal lottery
186:
118:
108:
35:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
2025:
2023:
2015:
2014:
2009:
2004:
1999:
1994:
1984:
1983:
1979:
1978:
1969:
1954:(5): 356â367.
1938:
1915:(2): 171â181.
1899:
1876:(3): 405â408.
1860:
1818:
1794:
1764:
1721:
1692:
1661:
1623:
1614:|journal=
1580:
1538:
1517:"Score Voting"
1508:
1467:
1442:
1424:
1407:
1356:
1354:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1331:
1317:
1314:
1289:
1286:
1256:spoiler effect
1243:
1240:
1237:
1236:
1233:
1230:
1226:
1225:
1222:
1219:
1215:
1214:
1211:
1208:
1204:
1203:
1200:
1197:
1193:
1192:
1189:
1186:
1177:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1167:
1162:
1157:
1151:
1138:
1137:
1131:
1121:
1107:
1106:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1087:
1084:
1078:
1045:
1042:
1011:voting methods
968:
967:
965:
964:
957:
950:
942:
939:
938:
926:
925:
913:
900:
897:
896:
893:
892:
887:
882:
877:
872:
860:
859:
854:
849:
844:
839:
828:
823:
822:
819:
818:
815:
814:
809:
804:
799:
784:
783:
781:Turkey-raising
778:
773:
768:
754:
753:
752:
751:
741:
736:
724:
723:
721:Center squeeze
718:
713:
708:
706:Spoiler effect
699:
694:
693:
690:
689:
686:
685:
680:
679:
678:
665:By ballot type
661:
660:
659:
658:
653:
648:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
629:
619:
618:
617:
606:
583:
582:
581:
576:
571:
566:
548:
547:
542:
533:
528:
527:
524:
523:
520:
519:
517:Limited voting
514:
513:
512:
493:
492:
487:
482:
477:
476:
475:
470:
451:
450:
445:
440:
435:
421:
420:
415:
410:
405:
391:
390:
389:
388:
386:Localized list
383:
378:
373:
368:
358:
357:
356:
354:Biproportional
351:
346:
341:
325:
320:
319:
316:
315:
312:
311:
306:
301:
296:
282:
281:
266:
251:
227:
226:
225:
224:
219:
214:
209:
199:
185:
184:
183:
182:
171:
158:Instant-runoff
155:
154:
153:
145:Jungle primary
132:
121:Single vote -
119:
114:
113:
110:
109:
107:
106:
96:
91:
86:
81:
75:
72:
71:
61:
60:
50:
49:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2024:
2013:
2010:
2008:
2005:
2003:
2000:
1998:
1995:
1993:
1990:
1989:
1987:
1973:
1970:
1966:
1961:
1957:
1953:
1949:
1942:
1939:
1935:
1930:
1926:
1922:
1918:
1914:
1910:
1903:
1900:
1896:
1891:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1871:
1864:
1861:
1857:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1833:
1829:
1822:
1819:
1814:
1808:
1804:
1798:
1795:
1791:
1779:. 31 May 2016
1778:
1774:
1768:
1765:
1761:
1758:
1754:
1743:on 2018-10-27
1742:
1738:
1734:
1728:
1726:
1722:
1718:
1706:
1702:
1696:
1693:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1676:
1672:
1665:
1662:
1658:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1627:
1624:
1619:
1606:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1584:
1581:
1577:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1547:
1545:
1543:
1539:
1535:
1523:. 21 May 2015
1522:
1518:
1512:
1509:
1504:
1500:
1495:
1490:
1487:(2): 99â107.
1486:
1482:
1478:
1471:
1468:
1464:
1462:
1458:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1439:
1435:
1428:
1425:
1420:
1414:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1373:
1366:
1364:
1362:
1358:
1352:
1347:
1343:
1340:
1335:
1332:
1329:
1326:
1325:
1323:
1322:Ranked voting
1320:
1319:
1315:
1313:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1287:
1285:
1283:
1279:
1274:
1272:
1268:
1263:
1259:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1241:
1234:
1231:
1228:
1227:
1223:
1220:
1217:
1216:
1212:
1209:
1206:
1205:
1201:
1198:
1195:
1194:
1190:
1187:
1185:
1184:
1181:
1175:
1171:
1168:
1166:
1163:
1161:
1158:
1155:
1152:
1150:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1143:
1135:
1132:
1129:
1125:
1122:
1119:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1112:
1104:
1100:
1097:
1092:
1089:The familiar
1088:
1085:
1082:
1079:
1076:
1073:
1072:
1070:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1063:
1059:
1050:
1043:
1041:
1039:
1038:merit profile
1035:
1030:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1005:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
982:
974:
963:
958:
956:
951:
949:
944:
943:
941:
940:
937:
932:
924:
919:
914:
912:
907:
902:
901:
899:
898:
891:
888:
886:
883:
881:
880:May's theorem
878:
876:
873:
871:
868:
867:
866:
865:
858:
855:
853:
850:
848:
845:
843:
840:
838:
835:
834:
833:
832:
826:
821:
820:
813:
810:
808:
805:
803:
800:
798:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:majority rule
788:Paradoxes of
782:
779:
777:
774:
772:
769:
767:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
750:
747:
746:
745:
742:
740:
737:
735:
732:
731:
730:
729:
722:
719:
717:
714:
712:
709:
707:
704:
703:
702:
697:
692:
691:
684:
681:
677:
674:
673:
672:
669:
668:
667:
666:
657:
654:
652:
649:
647:
644:
643:
642:
639:
633:
630:
628:
625:
624:
623:
620:
616:
611:
607:
605:
600:
596:
595:
594:
591:
590:
589:
588:
584:
580:
577:
575:
572:
570:
567:
565:
562:
561:
560:
559:
554:
553:
552:
546:
543:
541:
538:
537:
536:
531:
530:Mixed systems
526:
525:
518:
515:
511:
508:
507:
506:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
491:
490:Random ballot
488:
486:
483:
481:
478:
474:
471:
469:
466:
465:
464:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
449:
446:
444:
441:
439:
436:
434:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
419:
416:
414:
411:
409:
406:
404:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
387:
384:
382:
379:
377:
374:
372:
369:
367:
364:
363:
362:
359:
355:
352:
350:
347:
345:
342:
340:
337:
336:
335:
334:Apportionment
332:
331:
330:
329:
323:
318:
317:
310:
307:
305:
302:
300:
297:
295:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
279:
275:
270:
269:Antiplurality
267:
264:
260:
255:
252:
249:
245:
240:
237:
236:
235:
234:
233:
223:
220:
218:
215:
213:
210:
208:
205:
204:
203:
200:
198:
197:Condorcet-IRV
195:
194:
193:
192:
191:
181:
176:
172:
170:
165:
161:
160:
159:
156:
152:
149:
148:
146:
141:
136:
133:
131:
128:
127:
126:
124:
117:
112:
111:
104:
100:
97:
95:
92:
90:
87:
85:
82:
80:
79:Social choice
77:
76:
74:
73:
67:
63:
62:
59:
55:
54:Social choice
51:
47:
43:
39:
38:
33:
19:
18:Graded voting
1972:
1963:
1951:
1947:
1941:
1932:
1912:
1908:
1902:
1893:
1873:
1869:
1863:
1855:
1838:(1): 44â57.
1835:
1831:
1821:
1812:
1797:
1788:
1781:. Retrieved
1776:
1767:
1756:
1752:
1751:
1745:. Retrieved
1741:the original
1736:
1716:
1709:. Retrieved
1704:
1695:
1670:
1664:
1656:
1639:(1): 53â60.
1636:
1632:
1626:
1605:cite journal
1597:
1583:
1575:
1568:. Retrieved
1556:
1532:
1525:. Retrieved
1520:
1511:
1484:
1480:
1470:
1460:
1456:
1455:
1433:
1427:
1402:
1382:
1378:
1291:
1282:Smith//Score
1275:
1264:
1260:
1245:
1229:Candidate D
1218:Candidate C
1207:Candidate B
1196:Candidate A
1179:
1139:
1111:spoilerproof
1108:
1069:Score voting
1060:and satisfy
1055:
1037:
1034:distribution
1031:
1006:
1003:
1000:
996:
992:
988:
987:
863:
862:
829:
787:
786:
771:Exaggeration
757:
756:
727:
726:
700:
664:
663:
632:Mixed ballot
587:Compensatory
585:
558:compensatory
555:
550:
534:
496:
495:
454:
453:
424:
423:
394:
393:
381:List-free PR
326:
294:Score voting
286:
285:
284:
230:
229:
217:Ranked pairs
188:
187:
120:
1790:outright...
1711:10 December
1527:10 December
671:Single vote
574:Conditional
569:Coexistence
418:Quota Borda
408:Schulze STV
366:Closed list
309:STAR voting
254:Borda count
2002:Psephology
1986:Categories
1807:p. 33
1783:22 January
1757:Dr. Arrow:
1747:2016-12-10
1559:. Munich.
1443:0881333670
1353:References
993:evaluative
776:Truncation
505:Cumulative
328:Party-list
103:By country
94:Comparison
1929:0197-3533
1890:1099-0992
1852:0022-1015
1687:1556-5068
1653:0005-7940
1503:1866-7414
1452:316034736
1399:0176-2680
1385:: 14â28.
1308:, by the
683:Dual-vote
376:Panachage
371:Open list
361:List type
239:Plurality
135:Two-round
123:plurality
46:Economics
1316:See also
1242:Analysis
1044:Variants
1015:Cardinal
1001:cardinal
403:Hare STV
42:Politics
40:A joint
1302:sincere
1267:ratings
1213:Second
1144:rules.
1023:ordinal
1007:systems
413:CPO-STV
263:Baldwin
212:Schulze
207:Minimax
125:methods
1927:
1888:
1850:
1685:
1651:
1594:608821
1592:
1570:15 May
1501:
1450:
1440:
1397:
1271:Likert
1235:Third
1224:Third
1202:First
1103:median
1021:) and
1004:voting
997:graded
278:Coombs
48:series
1760:best.
1375:(PDF)
999:, or
989:Rated
615:'MMP'
604:'AMS'
1925:ISSN
1886:ISSN
1848:ISSN
1785:2017
1753:CES:
1713:2016
1683:ISSN
1649:ISSN
1618:help
1590:SSRN
1572:2018
1529:2016
1499:ISSN
1448:OCLC
1438:ISBN
1395:ISSN
1032:The
556:Non-
510:SNTV
99:List
56:and
44:and
1956:doi
1917:doi
1878:doi
1840:doi
1809:by
1675:doi
1641:doi
1561:doi
1489:doi
1387:doi
1312:).
1284:).
1232:20
1221:20
1210:55
1199:99
274:el.
259:el.
248:IRV
244:el.
1988::
1962:.
1952:23
1950:.
1931:.
1923:.
1913:18
1911:.
1892:.
1884:.
1872:.
1854:.
1846:.
1834:.
1830:.
1787:.
1775:.
1750:.
1735:.
1724:^
1715:.
1703:.
1681:.
1655:.
1647:.
1637:34
1635:.
1609::
1607:}}
1603:{{
1596:.
1574:.
1555:.
1541:^
1531:.
1519:.
1497:.
1485:44
1483:.
1479:.
1454:.
1446:.
1410:^
1401:.
1393:.
1383:55
1381:.
1377:.
1360:^
1258:.
1113::
995:,
991:,
610:NZ
599:UK
175:US
164:UK
147:)
140:US
1958::
1919::
1880::
1874:5
1842::
1836:6
1689:.
1677::
1643::
1620:)
1616:(
1563::
1505:.
1491::
1421:.
1389::
1130:.
961:e
954:t
947:v
612::
601::
280:)
271:(
265:)
256:(
250:)
241:(
177::
166::
142::
137:(
105:)
101:(
34:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
