About: Consistency criterion

An Entity of Type: WikicatVotingSystemCriteria, from Named Graph: http://dbpedia.org, within Data Space: dbpedia.org

A voting system is consistent if, whenever the electorate is divided (arbitrarily) into several parts and elections in those parts garner the same result, then an election of the entire electorate also garners that result. Smith calls this property separability and Woodall calls it convexity. It has been proven a ranked voting system is "consistent if and only if it is a scoring function", i.e. a positional voting system. Borda count is an example of this. The failure of the consistency criterion can be seen as an example of Simpson's paradox.

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • A voting system is consistent if, whenever the electorate is divided (arbitrarily) into several parts and elections in those parts garner the same result, then an election of the entire electorate also garners that result. Smith calls this property separability and Woodall calls it convexity. It has been proven a ranked voting system is "consistent if and only if it is a scoring function", i.e. a positional voting system. Borda count is an example of this. The failure of the consistency criterion can be seen as an example of Simpson's paradox. As shown below under Kemeny-Young, passing or failing the consistency criterion can depend on whether the election selects a single winner or a full ranking of the candidates (sometimes referred to as ranking consistency); in fact, the specific examples below rely on finding single winner inconsistency by choosing two different rankings with the same overall winner, which means they do not apply to ranking consistency. (en)
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 1792861 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 40924 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 1042335413 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dcterms:subject
rdf:type
rdfs:comment
  • A voting system is consistent if, whenever the electorate is divided (arbitrarily) into several parts and elections in those parts garner the same result, then an election of the entire electorate also garners that result. Smith calls this property separability and Woodall calls it convexity. It has been proven a ranked voting system is "consistent if and only if it is a scoring function", i.e. a positional voting system. Borda count is an example of this. The failure of the consistency criterion can be seen as an example of Simpson's paradox. (en)
rdfs:label
  • Consistency criterion (en)
owl:sameAs
prov:wasDerivedFrom
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
is dbo:wikiPageDisambiguates of
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Powered by OpenLink Virtuoso    This material is Open Knowledge     W3C Semantic Web Technology     This material is Open Knowledge    Valid XHTML + RDFa
This content was extracted from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License