Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In social choice theory, the majority rule (MR) is a social choice rule which says that, when comparing two options (such as bills or candidates), the option preferred by more than half of the voters (a majority) should win. In political philosophy, the majority rule is one of two major competing notions of democracy.
Confusion between unanimity and consensus, in other words, usually causes consensus decision-making to fail, and the group then either reverts to majority or supermajority rule or disbands. Most robust models of consensus exclude uniformly unanimous decisions and require at least documentation of minority concerns.
Unanimity is agreement by all people in a given situation. Groups may consider unanimous decisions as a sign of social , political or procedural agreement, solidarity , and unity. Unanimity may be assumed explicitly after a unanimous vote or implicitly by a lack of objections.
The theorem states that, absent restrictions on either individual preferences or neutrality of the constitution to feasible alternatives, there exists no social choice rule that satisfies a set of plausible requirements. The result generalizes the voting paradox, which shows that majority voting may fail to yield a stable outcome.
Majority requires support from more than 50% of the members of the group. Thus, the bar for action is lower than with unanimity and a group of "losers" is implicit to this rule. Plurality, where the largest block in a group decides, even if it falls short of a majority. Delphi method
A 6-3 majority ruled that Trump had broad immunity from prosecution for official actions he took in office, making it unlikely he would face trial in special counsel Jack Smith’s election ...
The U.S. Supreme Court acted unanimously when it sided with Donald Trump and prevented states from barring candidates for federal office from ballots based on a constitutional provision concerning ...
We will prove that any social choice rule respecting unanimity and independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) is a dictatorship. The proof is in three parts: We identify a pivotal voter for each individual contest (A vs. B, B vs. C, and A vs. C). Their ballot swings the societal outcome. We prove this voter is a partial dictator. In other ...