Skip to main content

Two Procedures Based on Ratings

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 335 Accesses

Part of the book series: Advances in Group Decision and Negotiation ((AGDN,volume 9))

Abstract

While most social choice results pertain to ranking environments where the individuals submit their preference relations (and these only) to the balloting procedure, there are procedures that require a slightly different kind of input from the voters. We discuss two such systems: the majority judgment and the range voting. These are relatively recent entrants in the social choice field. As all procedures they have their advantages and disadvantages, but deserve attention is some decision situations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   29.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Arrow, K. J. (1963). Social choice and individual values, 2nd edn. New Haven: Yale University Press (1st edn. 1951).

    Google Scholar 

  • Balinski, M., & Laraki, R. (2007). Theory of measuring, electing and ranking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., 104, 8720–8725.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balinski, M., & Laraki, R. (2010). Majority judgment. Measuring, ranking, and electing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felsenthal, D., & Machover, M. (2008). The majority judgment voting procedure: A critical evaluation. Homo Œconomicus, 25, 319–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felsenthal, D., & Nurmi, H. (2016). Two types of participation failure under nine voting procedures in variable electorates. Public Choice, 168, 115–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillinger, C. (2005). The case for utilitarian voting. Homo Œconomicus, 22, 295–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riker, W. H. (1982). Liberalism against populism. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adiel Teixeira de Almeida .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

de Almeida, A.T., Morais, D.C., Nurmi, H. (2019). Two Procedures Based on Ratings. In: Systems, Procedures and Voting Rules in Context . Advances in Group Decision and Negotiation, vol 9. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30955-8_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics