Judge:Don't Vote!

This article explains why the traditional model of the theory of social choice misrepresents reality, it cannot lead to acceptable methods of ranking and electing in any case, and a more realistic model leads inevitably to one method of ranking and electing—majority judgment—that best meets the traditional criteria of what constitutes a good method.Cet article explique pourquoi le modèle traditionnel de choix social n'est pas réaliste, il ne peut en aucun cas proposer une méthode acceptable pour classer et élire, et qu'un modèle plus réaliste implique inévitablement une seule méthode pour classer et élire ---le jugement majoritaire--- qui satisfait le mieux qu'il se peut les critères traditionnels de ce qui constitue une bonne méthode

Post-Election Audits: Restoring Trust in Elections

With the intention of assisting legislators, election officials and the public to make sense of recent literature on post-election audits and convert it into realistic audit practices, the Brennan Center and the Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic at Boalt Hall School of Law (University of California Berkeley) convened a blue ribbon panel (the "Audit Panel") of statisticians, voting experts, computer scientists and several of the nation's leading election officials. Following a review of the literature and extensive consultation with the Audit Panel, the Brennan Center and the Samuelson Clinic make several practical recommendations for improving post-election audits, regardless of the audit method that a jurisdiction ultimately decides to adopt