Section 15.2 Flaws of Voting

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Which units are you most interested in covering? Unit A –Management Science Unit B – Growth Unit C – Shape and Form Unit D – Statistics.
Advertisements

Voting Methods Continued
Math 1010 ‘Mathematical Thought and Practice’ An active learning approach to a liberal arts mathematics course.
IMPOSSIBILITY AND MANIPULABILITY Section 9.3 and Chapter 10.
Chapter 1: Methods of Voting
The Mathematics of Elections
Mathematics The study of symbols, shapes, algorithms, sets, and patterns, using logical reasoning and quantitative calculation. Quantitative Reasoning:
VOTING SYSTEMS Section 2.5.
 1. The majority criterion  2. Condorcet’s criterion  3. independence of irrelevant alternatives criterion  4. Monotonicity criterion.
Excursions in Modern Mathematics Sixth Edition
Fair Elections Are they possible?. Acknowledgment Many of the examples are taken from Excursions in Modern Mathematics by Peter Tannenbaum and Robert.
CRITERIA FOR A FAIR ELECTION
Homework Discussion Read Pages 48 – 62 Page 72: 1 – 4, 6 TEST 1 ON THURSDAY FEBRUARY 8 –The test will cover sections 1.1 – 1.6, and 2.1 – 2.3 in the textbook.
1 The Process of Computing Election Victories Computational Sociology: Social Choice and Voting Methods CS110: Introduction to Computer Science – Lab Module.
How is this math? Mathematics is essentially the application of deductive reasoning to the study relations among patterns, structures, shapes, forms and.
Social choice (voting) Vincent Conitzer > > > >
Section 1.1, Slide 1 Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Section 11.2, Slide 1 11 Voting Using Mathematics to Make Choices.
Voting Geometry: A Mathematical Study of Voting Methods and Their Properties Alan T. Sherman Dept. of CSEE, UMBC March 27, 2006.
Excursions in Modern Mathematics, 7e: Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. 1 The Mathematics of Voting The Paradoxes of Democracy Vote! In.
CPS Voting and social choice Vincent Conitzer
Slide 15-1 Copyright © 2005 Pearson Education, Inc. SEVENTH EDITION and EXPANDED SEVENTH EDITION.
Copyright © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 15 Section 2 - Slide Election Theory Flaws of Voting.
Chapter 15 Section 1 - Slide 1 Copyright © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. AND.
Math for Liberal Studies.  We have seen many methods, all of them flawed in some way  Which method should we use?  Maybe we shouldn’t use any of them,
Let’s take a class vote. How many of you are registered to vote?
Section 1.1, Slide 1 Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Section 11.1, Slide 1 11 Voting Using Mathematics to Make Choices.
Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc. Section 15.1 Voting Methods.
Voting Tie Breakers. With each method described – plurality method, Borda count method, plurality with elimination method, and pairwise comparison method.
Fairness Criteria and Arrow’s Theorem Section 1.4 Animation.
Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem. Question: Is there a public decision making process, voting method, or “Social Welfare Function” (SWF) that will tell us.
Warm-Up Rank the following soft drinks according to your preference (1 being the soft drink you like best and 4 being the one you like least)  Dr. Pepper.
The Mathematics of Voting Chapter 1. Preference Ballot A Ballot in which the voters are asked to rank the candidates in order of preference. 1. Brownies.
© 2010 Pearson Prentice Hall. All rights reserved Flaws of Voting Methods.
Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc. Section 15.2 Flaws of Voting.
14.2 Homework Solutions Plurality: Musical play Borda count: Classical play Plurality-with-elimination: Classical play Pairwise Comparison: Classical play.
The mathematics of voting The paradoxes of democracy.
Excursions in Modern Mathematics, 7e: 1.Conclusion - 2Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. 1 The Mathematics of Voting CONCLUSION Elections, Fairness,
Fairness Criteria Fairness Criteria: properties we expect a good voting system to satisfy.Fairness Criteria: properties we expect a good voting system.
Voting System Review Borda – Sequential Run-Off – Run-Off –
My guy lost? What’s up with that….  In the 1950’s, Kenneth Arrow, a mathematical economist, proved that a method for determining election results that.
1.
1 The Process of Computing Election Victories Computational Sociology: Social Choice and Voting Methods CS110: Introduction to Computer Science – Lab Module.
1 The Mathematics of Voting
Impossibility and Other Alternative Voting Methods
1.
Chapter 9: Social Choice: The Impossible Dream Lesson Plan
Chapter 10: The Manipulability of Voting Systems Lesson Plan
Chapter 9: Social Choice: The Impossible Dream Lesson Plan
8.2 Voting Possibilities and Fairness Criteria
Impossibility and Other Alternative Voting Methods
Chapter 9: Social Choice: The Impossible Dream Lesson Plan
1.3 The Borda Count Method.
Lecture 1: Voting and Election Math
Elections with More Than Two Candidates
Warm Up – 5/27 - Monday How many people voted in the election?
Warm Up – 1/23 - Thursday How many people voted in the election?
Social Choice Theory [Election Theory]
Classwork: p.33 (27abc run off, 29ab run off, 31, 33ab run off)
5-2 Election Theory Flaws of Voting.
Voting systems Chi-Kwong Li.
Voting and social choice
MAT 105 Fall 2008 More Voting Methods.
Warm Up – 1/27 - Monday Who wins by Plurality with Elimination?
Voting Pairwise Comparison.
Quiz – 1/24 - Friday How many people voted in the election?
Section 14.1 Voting Methods.
Flaws of the Voting Methods
CPS Voting and social choice
Voting Fairness.
Chapter 9: Social Choice: The Impossible Dream Lesson Plan
Presentation transcript:

Section 15.2 Flaws of Voting

What You Will Learn Fairness Criteria Majority Criterion Head-to-Head Criterion Monotonicity Criterion Irrelevant Alternative Criterion

Fairness Criteria Mathematicians and political scientists have agreed that a voting method should meet the following four criteria in order for the voting method to be considered fair. Majority Criterion Head-to-head Criterion Monotonicity Criterion Irrelevant Alternatives Criterion

Majority Criterion If a candidate receives a majority (more than 50%) of the first-place votes, that candidate should be declared the winner.

Head-to-Head Criterion If a candidate is favored when compared head-to-head with every other candidate, that candidate should be declared the winner.

Monotonicity Criterion A candidate who wins a first election and then gains additional support without losing any of the original support should also win a second election.

Irrelevant Alternatives Criterion If a candidate is declared the winner of an election and in a second election one or more of the other candidates is removed, the previous winner should still be declared the winner.

Summary of the Voting Methods and Whether They Satisfy the Fairness Criteria May not satisfy Irrelevant alternatives Always satisfies Monotonicity Head-to-head Majority Pairwise comparison Plurality with elimination Borda count Plurality Method Criteria

Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem It is mathematically impossible for any democratic voting method to simultaneously satisfy each of the fairness criteria: The majority criterion The head-to-head criterion The monotonicity criterion The irrevelant alternative criterion